The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) over what it described as an inadequate response to the implementation of the statutory 25% admission entitlement for economically weaker section (EWS) children in private unaided schools.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the Chairperson and Director of the NCPCR to remain personally present at the next hearing concerning the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The provision requires private unaided schools to admit, at the entry level, at least 25% of their sanctioned strength from children belonging to economically weaker and disadvantaged sections and provide them free and compulsory elementary education.
The direction came after the Bench examined an affidavit filed by the child rights body and found its response unsatisfactory. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the NCPCR during the proceedings.
The Court underscored that the Commission has a substantive statutory responsibility in ensuring that the legislative mandate under the Right to Education framework is translated into effective implementation on the ground.
Justice Narasimha observed that the NCPCR is not merely an administrative stakeholder but a statutory institution entrusted with an important role under the RTE framework. The Judge emphasised that whoever heads the Commission must appreciate the responsibility and public trust attached to the office.
The Bench particularly referred to the statutory objective behind the concept of neighbourhood schools, noting that the framework seeks to ensure that children are not excluded from educational opportunities on account of social and economic barriers.
The Court questioned the apparent lack of urgency in the Commission’s approach and indicated that its leadership would be required to explain its position before the Court.
The Bench clarified that the direction for personal appearance was not being issued in the nature of contempt proceedings. Rather, the NCPCR leadership would be required to engage with the substantive objective of Section 12 of the RTE Act and explain the measures being taken to ensure compliance by neighbourhood schools.
The proceedings arise from Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Supreme Court has been monitoring the implementation of the 25% admission mandate.
Earlier in January, the Court had issued a series of directions aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the statutory entitlement for EWS and disadvantaged children. At that stage, the Court had stressed the importance of neighbourhood schools in breaking down barriers based on class, caste and gender.
The NCPCR was subsequently brought into the proceedings to assist in monitoring compliance with the RTE framework. The Commission already has a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) concerning implementation of the statutory mandate.
The latest intervention by the Bench places renewed emphasis on institutional accountability in enforcing the 25% admission provision, particularly where statutory safeguards intended to facilitate access to elementary education for economically and socially disadvantaged children require coordinated implementation by the authorities.
The post Supreme Court questions NCPCR’s role in implementing 25% RTE quota,directs chairperson and director to appear appeared first on India Legal.