TED Newsdesk, New Delhi: On Friday, the Delhi High Court instructed the national capital’s autonomous schools and Kendriya Vidyalayas to distribute necessary devices and data facilities for virtual classes amid COVID-19.
The Court gave its judgment in response to the PIL filed by an education-based NGO- Justice for All, represented by the advocates Shikha Sharma Bagga and Khagesh B Jha. The plea raised concerns regarding the inequality noticed inside the classrooms. It demanded the provision of mobiles and laptops with good data connections for kids from Economically Weaker Section/ Disadvantaged Groups (EWS/DG).
Devices and data facilities: what the Delhi High Court asked of schools
The judgment, in Justice For All v. Government of NCT of Delhi, rests on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act obliges private unaided schools to admit children from weaker sections, and Section 12(2) gives those schools a route to reimbursement from the state.
The court reasoned that where a school teaches its fee-paying pupils through live online classes, withholding the kit needed to join those classes from EWS and DG children erects a financial barrier the Act does not permit, a situation the bench described as digital apartheid, according to LiveLaw’s report of the judgment. The ruling distributes the burden of devices and data facilities: Kendriya Vidyalayas and the private unaided schools each carry a defined piece of it, with the full text available through Indian Kanoon.
The pandemic had already pushed the question through the courts once. In August, the same High Court had cleared the University of Delhi to hold its open-book online examinations for final-year students from 10 August, as SCC Online recorded, a case that turned on the same gap between students with connectivity and students without. Private unaided schools must initially pay for devices and data facilities. The Delhi High Court told Kendriya Vidyalayas and private managements that it would watch compliance through the committee it created, with identification of suitable equipment due within two weeks and supply within two more.
The hearing took place before a two-judge bench on Friday. Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula gave the verdict keeping in mind inequality in the classroom with 75% of the pupils from the general category while 25% under the EWS/DG. The court ordered the schools to provide high-speed data and smartphones to the students who are unable to attend online classes.
Additionally, the court formed a board of three members to safeguard the smooth execution of the decision passed. The board consists of the Secretary of Education, Ministry of Education, India or his/her appointee, the Education Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), or his/her appointee and a third associate.
“The Committee shall identify gadget(s)/equipment(s) taking into account all relevant factors including their utility, ease of operation, cost, maintenance charges, the life of the gadget(s), the reputation of the manufacturer, child lock etc. within two weeks from its constitution. The Committee shall also decide as to whether any gadget(s)/equipment(s) needs to be purchased by cluster bidding or by individual schools or hired by way of lease or license agreement,” directed the court.
It added, “The private unaided schools shall either purchase or hire or lease the gadget(s)/equipment(s) as directed by the said Committee and supply the same along with internet package to the EWS/DG students within further two weeks. The private unaided schools shall file their claims for reimbursement to the Delhi government within eight weeks from the date of supply of such gadget(s)/equipment(s).”
The 94-page conclusion stated that the parents should not be charged for the Internet and mobile facilities. The tuition fee doesn’t include the cost of such provisions so it should be the responsibility of private institutions and Kendriya Vidyalayas for the same. It complies with the RTE Act which enables these institutions to request compensation.
Calling the method of digital education as a substitute rather than a permanent solution to a conventional classroom, Justice Narula highlighted, “In the present pandemic situation, the shift towards online education has taken place literally overnight, and without much deliberation. One could argue that the unprecedented situation warranted such a drastic switch over. Therefore, I do not find any fault with the approach of the schools that have adopted digital technology for imparting education. However, it is necessary to issue a note of caution here so that the modes and methods adapted during this extraordinary time are not seen as the quintessential purpose of the Act.”
He claimed that the involvement of digital platforms for educational purposes is an essential and evolving process. It is not just an adjunct to the physical classroom method. It involves active “and is not just limited to uploading and delivering content over digital devices. It is a fundamentally different concept still at an experimental stage. The traditional blackboard approach is not adequate in a virtual classroom, as this format demands curating and designing of a different form of content that can be conveyed and assimilated on a digital platform.”
“Without face-to-face interaction, gathering and retaining the attention of students for a prolonged time, and ensuring that the imparted education is understood effectively by each of the attendees in a virtual classroom becomes a demanding task. Blending and integration of ICT in elementary education require strategic planning and building broad-based support amongst the stakeholders. This radically different form of education is bound to pose numerous and complex problems,” he continued.
“Thus, in my view, the digitalization of elementary education, which targets children of ages between 6 and 14 years, by restricting the child to be a passive receiver without an interactive environment, needs a deeper probe. However, this paradigm shift, in the current situation, has happened rapidly. This mode seems to have taken the front seat in the unprecedented emergency scenario we are placed in today. Globally, scepticism is the underlying sentiment when it comes to digital education. Nations are grappling to find the correct answers to deal with the present situation. I would therefore say that we should approach the subject on a cautionary note,” Narula elaborated in his note.
Since then: stayed in the Supreme Court
The Delhi High Court judgment on devices and data facilities, with its directions to Kendriya Vidyalayas and private schools, did not survive long on appeal. On 10 February 2021 the Supreme Court stayed its operation on a petition brought by the Delhi government, with a bench led by the Chief Justice of India sitting with Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, LiveLaw reported.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Delhi government, argued that the High Court had “rewrote the Right to Education Act”, and the Chief Justice observed orally that courts cannot create an additional financial burden on the state. The stay froze the committee process the High Court had designed, and the underlying question, who pays when the classroom moves online, passed to the Supreme Court’s docket.
