In India, children between the age group of 6 and 14 years have the fundamental right to free and compulsory education. This right is implemented through the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Act is applicable to all categories of schools (government and private). According to recent media reports (see here and here), many schools (including government schools) are flouting norms laid down in the RTE Act. Unaided schools have criticised state government over norms related to religious and linguistic status of minority schools (see here and here). The government has also faced flak over unclear norms on neighbourhood schools and reimbursement of money to private schools (see here, here and here). Most Acts ‘delegate’ the power to make rules and regulations for operationalising the law to the executive (Ministry). We provide an overview of the Rules notified by the state governments. The central government notified the RTE Rules 2010 on April 9, 2010, which are applicable to all schools under the central government, and in the five Union Territories without legislatures. Most of the states have notified similar Rules with a few variations. The Rules define the limits of a neighbourhood and make it mandatory for the local authority to maintain list of children within its jurisdiction. They also prescribe the composition of the School Management Committee to be formed in government schools. Private schools shall reserve 25% of the seats for disadvantaged children. These schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower. All private schools have to be recognised before they can start operation. Recognition is contingent upon meeting the minimum standard laid down in the Act Existing private schools have to meet the norms within three years of commencement of the Act. If they are not compliant after three years, they shall cease to function. Government schools under the central government have to meet only two conditions: the minimum qualification for teachers and the student-teacher ratio. For all state government schools and un-adided schools, the power to make rules is delegated to the state government. The central government circulated Model Rules for the RTE Act to the states. All state governments, except Goa, have notified the state RTE Rules. Delhi and Puducherry have also notified them. Most of the states have notified similar Rules with a few variations. We list some of the variations. Andhra Pradesh: The break-up of the 25% quota among the various disadvantaged groups have been included in the Rules. Scheduled Castes: 10%; Scheduled Tribes: 4%; Orphans, disabled and HIV affected: 5% and children with parents whose annual income is lower than Rs 60,000: 6%. Rajasthan: Private schools either have to be affiliated with a university or recognised by any officer authorised by the state government. Karnataka: In addition to the minimum norms under RTE Act, private schools have to comply with the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Gujarat: If an existing recognised school is unable to meet the infrastructure norms it may be given the option of demonstrating that it achieved certain learning outcomes, both in terms of absolute levels and as improvement from previous years. Uttar Pradesh: The government shall pay per child reimbursement to the school after it gives a list of children with their Unique Identity Number and other details. Kerala: The local authority has to maintain a record of all the children (0-14 years) within its jurisdiction. It shall also maintain the Unique Identity Number of every child, as and when issued by the competent authority, to monitor his enrolment, attendance and learning achievements. Haryana: Defines textbooks, uniform and writing material. It states that Hindi is to be the preferred medium of instruction in all schools. For using other language, permission of Director, Elementary Education Dept is required (to be given within 45 days or deemed to be granted). West Bengal: The Rules give detailed definition of the appropriate age for each class. They require schools to be set up in a relatively noise-free and pollution-free area with adequate supply of drinking water and electricity. Existing schools (which are already recognised or affiliated with a Board) may get the local municipal authorities to provide infrastructural support including relaxation of building rules to comply with the requirements of the Act. Additional sources
In law, the addition or deletion a single punctuation or a single word can have a major impact on the effect of that law. One such example can be seen from the recommended changes in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 by Parliament’s Standing Committee. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 7, 2010. The Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, which submitted its report on the Bill yesterday (August 18, 2010). The Committee has made a number of recommendations regarding certain clauses in the Bill (See summary here). One of these may have the effect of diluting the provision currently in the Bill. The main recommendations pertain to:
Clause 17 of the Bill which gives operators a right of recourse against those actually causing damage had been opposed as it was felt that it was not strong enough to hold suppliers liable in case the damage was caused by them. Clause 17 gave a right of recourse under three conditions. The exact clause is reproduced below: The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where — (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; (b) the nuclear incident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage. Under this clause, a right of recourse exists when (a) there is a contract giving such a right, or (b) the supplier acts deliberately or in a grossly negligent manner to cause nuclear damage, or (c) a person causes nuclear damage with the intent to do so. If any of the three cases can be proved by the operator, he has a right of recourse. The Committee has stated that “Clause 17(b) gives escape route to the suppliers of nuclear materials, equipments, services of his employees as their willful act or gross negligence would be difficult to establish in a civil nuclear compensation case.” It recommended that Clause 17(b) should be modified to cover consequences “of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or service.” The Committee also recommended another change in Clause 17. It recommended that clause 17(a) may end with “and”. This provision may dilute the right of recourse available to operators. The modified clause 17 would read as: The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where — (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; and, (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of latent or patent defect, supply of sub-standard material, defective equipment or services or from the gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services.; (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage. This implies that for Clauses 17(b) or (c) to be applicable, the condition specified in clause 17(a) has to be compulsorily satisfied. Two examples highlight the consequence of the recommended change in Clause 17(a) of the Bill:
The effect of the changes recommended by the committee may thus dilute the provision as it exists in the Bill. The table below compares the position in the Bill and the position as per the Standing Committee’s recommendations:
| Right of recourse - The Bill gives operators a right to recourse under three conditions: (a) if there is a clear contract; (b) if the damage is caused by someone with intent to cause damage; (c) against suppliers if damage is caused by their wilful act or negligence. | In the Bill the three conditions are separated by a semi-colon. The Committee recommended that the semi-colon in clause 17(a) should be replaced by “and”. | This might imply that all three conditions mentioned need to exist for an operator to have recourse. |
| Right to recourse against suppliers exists in cases of “willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier”. (Clause 17) | The Committee felt that the right of recourse against suppliers is vague. It recommended that recourse against the supplier should be strengthened. The supplier is liable if an incident has occurred due to (i) defects, or (ii) sub-standard material, or (iii) gross negligence of the supplier of the material, equipment or services. | The variance with the Convention continues to exist. |
