ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSUMER PROTECT. FOUND. vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 631 OF 2004 Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation .. Petitioner Versus Delhi Administration & Ors. .. Respondents J U D G M E N T S. K. Radhakrishnan, J. JUDGMENT 1. This Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner, a registered charitable society, seeking various directions to improve the conditions of Government and aided schools and also school run by the local authorities so that the constitutional objective of providing free and Page 1 2 compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India would be a reality.

States and the Union Territories to provide the basic infrastructure facilities like toilet facility, drinking water, class rooms, appointment of teachers and all other facilities so that children can study in a clean and healthy environment. While the matter was pending before this Court, the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short ‘the RTE Act’). The constitutional validity of the RTE Act was challenged before this Court and this Court, vide its Judgment dated 12.4.2012 in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India JUDGMENT and Another (2012)6 SCC 1, upheld its validity and gave various directions, some of which are as follows: (a)In exercise of the powers conferred upon the appropriate Government under Section 38 of the RTE Act, the Government shall frame rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and in Page 2 3 particular, the matters stated under sub-Section (2) of Section 38 of the RTE Act. (b)The directions, guidelines and rules shall be framed

(c) All the State Governments which have not constituted the State Advisory Council in terms of Section 34 of the RTE Act shall so constitute the Council within three months from today. The Council so constituted shall undertake its requisite functions in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and advise the Government in terms of clauses (6), (7) and (8) of this order immediately thereafter. (d)Central Government and State Governments may set up a proper Regulatory Authority for supervision and effective functioning of the Act and its implementation. JUDGMENT 3. This Court, therefore, directed the Central Government, appropriate Government and other competent authorities functioning under the RTE Act to issue proper directions/guidelines for its full implementation within a period of six months from the date of the Page 3 4 pronouncement of that judgment. This Court also directed all the State Governments to constitute State Advisory Council within three months from the date of that judgment. Advisory Councils so

Government in terms of Clauses (6), (7) and (8) of this Court’s order. The necessity of constituting a proper Regulatory Authority for effective functioning of the RTE Act and its implementation was also highlighted. The Central Government was also directed to frame rules, in exercise of its powers under Section 38 of the RTE Act, for proper implementation of the RTE Act. 4. On the basis of directions issued by this Court in this Writ Petition, some of the States have responded by furnishing the details JUDGMENT of infrastructure facilities available in the schools situated in their respective States. This Court noticed that some of the schools have not provided proper toilet facilities for boys and girls and in some of the schools, it was noticed, that there is no provision for drinking water as well. Detailed interim orders were passed by this Court on Page 4 5 29.4.2011 and 22.9.2011. On 18.10.2011, this Court passed the following order:

We direct all the States and the Union Territories to ensure that toilet facilities are made th available in all the schools on or before 30 November, 2011. In case it is not possible to have permanent construction of toilets, at least temporary toilets be provided in the schools on or th before 30 November, 2011 and permanent toilets st be made available by 31 December, 2011. We direct the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the States/Union Territories to file their th affidavits on or before 30 November, 2011.” JUDGMENT 5. Again, on 5.12.2011, this Court reiterated the directions as follows: “In our previous order dated 18.10.2011, we clearly indicated that it is imperative that all the schools must provide toilet facilities; empirical researches have indicated that wherever toilet facilities are not provided in the schools, parents do not send their children (particularly girls) to schools. Page 5 6

We are told that the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation is the concerned ministry. We request the learned additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India to take instructions from the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation and file an affidavit within four weeks from today, indicating therein the latest position about the problem of drinking water in the country.” 6. The situation that we get in few States has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in its interim order dated 13.1.2012. Some JUDGMENT of the States have taken some positive steps, but some the States still lag behind. Taking note of all those aspects, this Court passed an order on 12.3.2012, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “The Chief Secretaries of various States were directed to ensure that separate permanent toilets Page 6 7

In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, affidavits have been filed by the States of Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Nagaland, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Odhisha, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Municiapl Corporation of Delhi and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. These States/union Territories in their respective affidavits have indicated that they have either constructed the toilets for boys and girls or they would complete it st before the stipulated date that is before 31 March, 2012. rd According to the Office Report dated 3 day of March, 2012, following States have not filed their affidavits: JUDGMENT 1. Tripura 2. Tamil Nadu 3. Sikkim 4. Gujarat 5. Bihar 6. Rajasthan 7. Jammu and Kashmir 8. Madhya Pradesh 9. Kerala Page 7 8

JUDGMENT Project Objectives - 13,14,636 Project Performance - 11,99,117 Page 8 9 Percentage-wise progress - 91.21%

In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is mentioned that as per information provided by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, the number of Government schools with sanitation facility available, as per their District Information System for Education (DISE) 2010-11 is as under: Total Number of Govt. Schools - 10,96,064 Government Schools with Girls Toilet - 6,24,074 JUDGMENT Government Schools with Boys/ Common Toilet - 8,24,605 Let copies of this affidavit be supplied by the Registry to the learned counsel appearing for the States/Union Territories within one week from today. Page 9 10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National University for Educational Planning and Education undertakes to file a comprehensive affidavit giving therein up-to-date position about the availability of teachers and infrastructure in schools. Let a comprehensive affidavit be filed by all the States/Union Territories regarding teachers and infrastructure in schools within three weeks from today, with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the States/Union Territories.” 7. We notice that some of the States have not fully implemented JUDGMENT the directions issued by this Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) as well as the provisions contained in the RTE Act. Considering the facts that this Court has already issued various directions for proper implementation of the RTE Act and to frame rules, there is no reason to keep this Writ Petition pending. Page 10 11 8. We also notice that Section 31 of the RTE Act has also conferred certain functions on the National Commission for

“ 31 . Monitoring of child’s right to education.- (1) The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under section 3, or, as the case may be, the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under section 17, of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, shall, in addition to the functions assigned to them under that Act, also perform the following functions, namely:— (a) examine and review the safeguards for rights provided by or under this Act and recommend measures for their effective implementation; (b) inquire into complaints relating to child's right to free and compulsory education; and (c) take necessary steps as provided under sections 15 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act. JUDGMENT (2) The said Commissions shall, while inquiring into any matters relating to child's right to free and compulsory education under clause (c) of sub-section (1), have the same powers as assigned to them respectively under sections 14 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act. (3) Where the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been constituted in a State, the Page 11 12 appropriate Government may, for the purpose of performing the functions specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1), constitute such authority, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed.”

examine and review the safeguards for the child’s rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation. 9. We are, inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to all the States to give effect to the various directions already given by this Court like providing toilet facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities, sufficient class rooms, appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff etc., if not already provided, within six months from today. We make it clear that these directions are applicable to all the schools, whether State owned or privately owned, aided or JUDGMENT unaided, minority or non-minority. As the writ petition is disposed of, no orders are required to be passed on applications for intervention and impleadment and the same are disposed of. Page 12 13 10. We make it clear that if the directions are not fully implemented, it is open to the aggrieved parties to move this Court for appropriate orders. ……………………………….…J (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN) …………………………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, October 3, 2012 JUDGMENT Page 13 14 ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.11 SECTION PIL [FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 631 OF 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSUMER PROTECT. FOUND. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 03/10/2012 This Petition was called on for judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh,Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei,Adv. JUDGMENT Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG, State of Haryana Mrs. Vivekta Singh,Adv. Mr. Tarjit Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG, State of Rajasthan Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Sen,Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Page 14 15 Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Vernika Tomar,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv. Mr. Amitesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ravi Kant,Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta,Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta ,Adv Mr. G. Prakash ,Adv Mr. Gopal Singh ,Adv Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv Mr. Naresh K. Sharma ,Adv Ms. Pratibha Jain ,Adv Mr. Surya Kant ,Adv Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra ,Adv Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma ,Adv M/S Arputham,Aruna & Co. ,Adv JUDGMENT Mr. Irshad Ahmad ,Adv Mr. V.G. Pragasam ,Adv Mr. S. Rajappa ,Adv Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya ,Adv Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R. ,Adv Mr. Radha Shyam Jena ,Adv Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair ,Adv Mr. Abhijit Sengupta ,Adv Ms. Bina Madhavan ,Adv Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra ,Adv M/S Corporate Law Group ,A.O.R. Page 15 16 Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija ,Adv Mr. Kuldip Singh ,Adv Mr. S. Thananjayan ,Adv Mr. Abhishek Atrey ,Adv Mr. G.N.Reddy ,Adv Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat ,Adv M/S. Bhatia & Co. ,Adv Ms. Prerna Mehta ,Adv Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan pronounced reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra. In terms of signed reportable judgment, the writ petition is disposed of. (A.D. Sharma) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Court Master (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) JUDGMENT Page 16