Skip to main content

Compromise with Right to Education during pandemic

 Compromise of Right to Education during Pandemic

By- Dibya Ranjan Swain

Education is one of the primary attributes of a human being. Without education, the all-round development of a human being is compromised. Education is a basic human right and it helps an individual to grow itself and to help in aiding the society through which society can progress in the path of development effectively and efficiently. 

But unfortunately, every activity during the pandemic came to a halt and the major activities like production, education, and more were largely affected due to it. In a country like India where the infrastructure is not that great and where there is no equal distribution of wealth, opportunities, and facilities the most compromised field was the field of education. Most of the educational institutions switched the method of teaching and examination to online mode. Now it is a question of fact that "Whether every student is privileged to take up online education?" and "Whether online education is the correct method of teaching and imparting education?" and "How much the online teaching and imparting of education via online mode is effective?".

Above are a few questions that remain unanswered and which is of course a debatable topic considering the pandemic.

Right to Education a Fundamental Right-

Article 21A was added after The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002. It made the education for all children of the age 6 to 14 years a fundamental right and made the duty of the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age 6 to 14 years in such a manner as the state may, by law, determine".

Right to Education was a gift to the nation by a Judicial initiative or we can say through Judicial activism. In Mohini Jain V. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858), this was the first case where the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Education as a fundamental right. In this case, the petitioner was denied admission due to high fees in a private medical college situated in Karnataka. Here the Court rightly held that Education in India is not a commodity and charging such a huge amount of fees is a denial of a Citizen's right to education.

In the case of Unni Krishnan V. State of A.P (1993 1 SCC 645), the Court did not agree with the decision of Mohini Jain case and overruled it. The Court specifically held that the right to education for children of the age of 6 to 14 years is a fundamental right. And after the completion of 14 years of age, the obligation of the state depends upon its economic capacity.

As a result of this Judgement, Parliament passed the Right of Children to Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It makes responsible the Central Government, State Government, teachers, parents, and the community members to ensure that all the children of the prescribed age receive free and compulsory education.

As we have seen that Right to Education is a fundamental right and it is quite evident that the fundamental right was compromised during the pandemic to which no adequate remedy is available. But the state needs to come forward and acknowledge the fact that there is a compromise with the Right to Education and provide remedies through which students can get benefit as they are the asset and future of the Nation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more