·
From the
Constitution of India: Preamble
·
THE
CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997 Bill No. XXXIX Of 1997
·
Report of the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development
From the Constitution of India
Preamble
WE, THE PEOPLE OF
INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST
SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social,
economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity
of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November,
1949, do HEREBYADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION
Part III Fundamental Rights
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
Part IV Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 41 Right to work, to education and to public
assistance in certain cases.
The State shall,
within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective
provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance
in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases
of undeserved want.
Article 45 Provision for free and compulsory
education for children
The State shall endeavor to provide, within a period
of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and
compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen
years.
An important extract from the Supreme Court Judgement
in the landmark case Unni Krishnan, J. P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR
1993, S.C. 2179-2254)
"1. The
citizens of this country have a fundamental right to education. The said right
flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its
content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Articles 45 and
41. In other words, every child/citizen of this country has a right to free
education until he completes the age of fourteen years. Thereafter his right to
education is subject to the limit of economic capacity and development of the
State.
2. The obligations
created by Article 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution can be discharged by the
State either by establishing institutions on its own or by aiding, recognising,
and/or by granting affiliation to private educational institutions. Where aid is
not granted to private educational institutions, and merely recognition or
affiliation is granted, it may not be insisted that the private education
institution shall only charge that fee as is charged for similar courses in
governmental institutions. The private educational institutions have to and are
entitled to charge a higher fee, not exceeding the ceiling fixed in that
behalf. The admission of these students and the charging of fee in these
private educational institutions shall be governed by the scheme evolved herein
set out in Part III of this Judgement........"
THE CONSTITUTION
(EIGHTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997 Bill No. XXXIX
of 1997
A BILL further to amend the Constitution of India
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-eighth Year of the
Republic of India as
follows:-
This Act may be called the Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment)
Act, 1997. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may,
by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint. After article 21 of
the Constitution, the following article shall be inserted, namely:- 21A, The
State shall provide free and compulsory education to all citizens of the age
six to fourteen years. The right to free and compulsory education referred to
in clause (1) shall be enforced in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine. The State shall not make any law, for free and compulsory education
under clause (2), in relation to the educational institutions not maintained by
the State or not receiving aid out of State funds. "Article 35 of the
Constitution shall be renumbered as clause (1) of that article and after clause
(1) as so renumbered and before the Explanation, the following clause shall be
inserted, namely:- "(2) The competent legislature shall make the law for
the enforcement of right to free and compulsory education referred to in clause
(1) of article 21A within one year from the commencement of the Constitution
(Eighty-third Amendment) Act, 1997: provided that a provision of any law to
free, and compulsory education in force in a State immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Act, 1997 which is
inconsistent of article 21A, shall continue to be in force until amended or
repealed by a competent legislature or other competent authority or until the
expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier"
Article 45 of the Constitution shall be omitted. In article 51A of the
Constitution, after clause (j) the following clause will be added,
namely:-"(k) to provide opportunities for education to a child between the
age of six and fourteen years of whom such citizen is a parent or
guardian."
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The founding fathers of our Constitution made a provision
imposing an obligation, under article
45 in Part IV relating to the Directive Principles of State Policy, upon the State to endeavour to provide within a
period of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for children up to fourteen years
of age. However, this goal has proved
elusive so far. Our inability to achieve this goal 37 years has been a cause for serious concern. Reiterating the
constitutional directive, the National
Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 as modified in 1992, stated that free and compulsory elementary education of
satisfactory quality shall be provided
to all children up to the age of fourteen years before we enter the
21st century. The Supreme Court in its
judgment in Unni Krishnan J.P. vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, A. I. R, 1993 SC 2178, has held that children of this
country have a fundamental right to
free education until they complete the age of
fourteen years. The Common Minimum Programme of the United Front
Government, resolves to make right to
free and compulsory elementary education a
fundamental right and to enforce it through suitable statutory
measures. The Committee of Education
Ministers which was set up to examine the
implications of the aforesaid resolution have recommended that the Constitution be amended to make the Right
to Free and Compulsory Education from
six to fourteen years of age as a fundamental right and to make a fundamental duty of parents to provide
opportunities for education to their
children of this age group. Consequent thereupon, provision in the
nature of compulsory and free
education as a Directive Principles of State Policy under article 45 is no more required. States and
Union territories would be required to
enact laws for the enforcement of free and compulsory education within one year from the commencement of the
Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Act
1997. The fundamental of the
Constitution to provide for compulsory education of children as a fundamental right would demonstrate the necessary
political will and administrative
resolve of the country to achieve Universalisation of elementary education and to eradicate illiteracy. This
historical amendment of the
Constitution in the 50th year of our independence should inspire the Nation to meet the daunting challenge of
achieving the goal of education for
all by 2000 AD.
The Bill seeks to
achieve the above objects.
New Delhi S. R. BOMMAI
The 9th July, 1997
FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM
Clause 2 of the
Bill seeks to insert a new article 21A in the Constitution of India to provide that the State shall
provide free and compulsory education to
all citizens of the age of six to fourteen years. The estimated financial expenditure to
implement the aforesaid obligation is
forty thousand crore rupees. The estimated annual expenditure will be
eight thousand crore rupees. The said
expenditure shall be shared by the Union and
the States on the basis of sharing arrangements to be determined by a
group of experts constituted for the
purpose by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development. No other recurring
or non-recurring expenditure is likely to be involved.
Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource
Development Presented to both Houses of the Parliament on 24.11.97
1. In
India, Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE) has been recognised as a
crucial input for nation building since independence. The founding fathers of
our Constitution had given a prominent place to educational endeavours when
they made a provision for free and compulsory education for children up to 14
years of age within a period of 10 years in the Directive principles of State
Policy. However, this goal has proved elusive so far. Our inability to achieve
this goal 36 years after the target date has been a cause for serious concern
within the country and in international fora. Our failure to achieve UEE has
resulted in a number of interconnected problems like the population explosion,
prevalence of unacceptable levels of poverty, unemployment and disease, one of
the largest adult illiterate populations in the world; and lack of adequate
skilled manpower to achieve our economic goals.
2. According
to the Department of Education, the proposal to amend the Constitution to make
the right to free education, a Fundamental Right and provision of opportunities
for education for children up to 14 years of age a fundamental duty of the
citizens of India, is expected to provide the desired momentum to the efforts
being made in the country to achieve UEE by 2000 AD. It is expected to
stimulate Central and State Governments to meet the special needs of
under-served and unserved populations and regions.
3. The
Department of Education have stated that the thrust of the Central and State
Governments in Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE) has been on
Universal access, universal participation, universal retention and universal
achievement. The Committee is, however, constrained to note that
notwithstanding these achievements, the task of UEE is far from complete. There
are several gender, regional, sectional and caste disparities in provision of
elementary education. Even after 50 years of Independence, a very large segment
of children of school-going age still remains out of school. It is a tragic
state of affairs that only two-third of those who join school complete primary
schooling and only half complete upper primary schooling. A significant
proportion of children drop-out from school before completing their studies due
to socio-economic and cultural factors. Lack of basic amenities, shortage and
absenteeism of teachers, non-availability of teaching learning materials and a
curriculum which is not fully related to local needs are equally responsible
for the ever increasing drop-out problem. Not only this, studies have revealed
low achievement levels in primary school even in States which are considered
educationally advanced.
4. The
Department in the written note stated that the Supreme Court in its judgement
in Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. Andhra Pradesh, 1993, has held that children of this
country have a Fundamental Right to free education until they complete the age
of 14 years. According to the Supreme Court, this right flows from Article 21
relating to protection of life and personal liberty and its contents and
parameters have to be determined in the light of Article 41 which provides for
right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases and
Article 45 which provides for free and compulsory education to children up to
the age of 14 years. The apex court has observed that the obligation created by
these Articles of the Constitution can be discharged by the State either by
establishing institutions of its own or by aiding, recognising and granting
affiliation to educational institutions. It was further stated that the Saikia
Committee recommended that the Constitution of India should be amended to make
the right to free elementary education up to 14 years of age a fundamental
right.
5. Many people expert in education
who have submitted a written memoranda to the Committee, have welcomed the
proposal of the Government. They are, however, against deletion of Article 45.
They felt that there could be a simple fundamental right in the proposed
Article 21 (A) and Article 45 can be retained. On these doubts expressed by
several educational experts as to whether it is wise to delete Article 45, the
Secretary, Education stated that the Law Ministry advised that after it is
converted into Fundamental Right, Article 45 becomes redundant, and they went
by the advice of the Law Ministry.
6. Article 45, lays down that
every child up to the age of 14 years shall receive free and compulsory
education. The proposed article 21 (A) lays down that the State shall provide
free and compulsory education to all citizens of the age of 6-14 years. Many
people in the written memoranda have opposed the proposal of restricting the
age limit for providing free compulsory education between 6 to 14 years of age.
According to them Article 45 which is sought to be deleted, was framed by the
founding fathers to provide education to children up to the age of 14 years
without mention of lower limit and deletion of article 45 without
simultaneously making a provision for the education of children under 6 years
will be tantamount to taking away the rights sought to be given to this age
group by the founding fathers.
7. As regards
limiting the age at 14 year also, many representationists expressed the view
that it should be increased from 14 to either 16 or 18. The general feeling was
that at the time of framing of article 45, the formal certification of school
education was at standard 7th and the founding fathers had set the limits of
free and compulsory education for the child one year beyond the age at which
standard 7th could be completed. However in the present scenario, a child can
finish education up to standard 8th within the age of 6 - 14 years and no more.
The current educational pattern have no formal certification of completion of
school studies until the successful completion of standard 10th. This means
that the child who cannot afford education except when it is free will have to
discontinue her/his education before formal certification. This closes further
avenues of learning or employment. It was, therefore, prayed that the age limit
should be increased up to 16 years. On this the Secretary, Education stated
that the Department, after agonising over this issue for a very long time,
thought that though this issue could not be ignored, but while coming to a
situation where it becomes as justiciable fundamental right, what is possibly
enforceable is the age-group i.e. after 6 years when one enters into a formal
system. Prior to that, it is very essential, very necessary, but it is entirely
a different exercise and a big problem as to how it can be converted into a
structure, pattern under which it can be enforced as a fundamental right.
8. It was informed by the
Department of Education to the Committee that the Constitutional amendments to
make elementary education a Fundamental Right enforceable against the State and
a Fundamental Duty of parents would need to be backed by suitable statutory
measures for making elementary education compulsory. At present there is no
Central Legislation, making elementary education compulsory. About having a
Central Legislation, the Secretary stated that the question was debated
extensively by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers, after
some discussions, came to the conclusion that in this land of enormous
diversity, it would be, perhaps, undesirable to go in for a Central Legislation
which may not be able to take care of the requirements and specific needs of
the State. The consensus was clearly in favour of State legislation, he added.
9. Most of the experts were of
the view that the term 'free' needs to be clearly defined. They felt that it
should not mean a mere non-payment of fees but should also include one meal,
books notebooks/Slates, medical assistance, transport where needed and above
all guaranteed presence of teacher and a school. The Committee was given to
understand that free education, so far, has been equated with the exemption of
tuition fees which is negligible in the case of students in primary and upper
primary schools run by Government and local bodies, the consensus which emerged
was that there should be, at least, free tuition up to the primary stage, for
both boys and girls. If certain States are in a position to provide additional
incentives, they can do it. But in so far as the common understanding is
concerned, the minimum is, up to the primary level, free tuition and free
books, he added. As regards the question of providing free stationery, he
clarified that there was no clear consensus.
10. One of the main apprehensions
voiced by the eminent educationists was that the State cannot provide a
fundamental right to compulsory education. Only a right to education can be
provided. The wording free and compulsory education is in consonance with the
spirit of directive principles but while shifting this article to the
fundamental rights, this compulsion does not go well with the concept of right.
The Secretary Education clarified that the compulsion more or less, is being
looked at as compulsion of the State Government to provide basic facilities
which the Government must provide.
11. Clause (3) of
the proposed Article 21 provides that the State shall not make any law for free
and compulsory education under clause (2), in relation to the educational
institutions not maintained by the State or not receiving aid out of State
funds. However, strong apprehensions were voiced about clause (3) of the
proposed new Article 21 A. Many of the people in the written memoranda and also
educational experts in the oral evidence have expressed displeasure over
keeping the private educational institutions outside the purview of the
fundamental right to be given to the children. The Secretary, stated that the
Supreme Court in the Unni Krishnan judgement said that wherever the State is
not providing any aid to any institution, such as institution need not provide
free education. The Department took into account the Supreme Court judgement in
the Unni Krishnan case which laid down that no private institution, can be
compelled to provide free services. Therefore, they provided in the
Constitutional amendment that this concept of free education need not be
extended to schools or institutions which are not aided by the Government, the
Secretary added. He, however, stated that there was no intention, to exclude
them from the overall responsibility to provide education.
12. The total additional
financial requirement estimated to be incurred to Rs. 7,200.00 crore per annum
in case the fundamental right to elementary education is operationalised. Some
educationists felt that the amount may increase. But they suggested that if all
irrelevant and non-priority wasteful expenditure on elementary education can be
done away with, it will be possible to fulfil the commitment.
13. The eminent Educationists
felt that the bill is silent on the Quality of Education. They suggested that
there should be a reference to quality of education in the Bill. The Secretary,
Education agreed that the quality aspect also has to be seen. Education
definitely must mean quality education and anything less than that should not
be called education. Therefore, the emphasis would be through strengthening the
teacher education content, the Secretary stated.
14. The proposed
insertion of Article 51 A, provides for a fundamental duty of every citizen who
is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to all children
upto 14 years of age. Apprehensions have been expressed by the educationists
that compulsion on parents as a result of this Article would pose major
problem, particularly for those parents who ostensibly cannot afford to send
their children to school. Defaulting parents would be subject to considerable
harassment resulting in widespread resentment among the general population. The
Secretary, Education, on being asked to comment on this, informed the Committee
that the Constitutional amendment as such is not talking about penalising the
parents. But there are already certain existing State legislations in different
States which do have penal provision. When this issue came up before the Saikia
Committee, they took the view that the emphasis should be on the motivation of
parents. But, in an extreme case, where there are aberrations, a penalty should
be resorted to as a last resort. But, there again, the Saikia Committee felt
that instead of bringing it under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, it
should be taken to the court of society, the Secretary added.
XV OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15. 1. The Committee welcomes
the initiative of the Government to make the right to free elementary education
a Fundamental Right. It is indeed a welcome step. In spite of a large number of
schemes taken up for universalisation of elementary education since
independence, it is unfortunate that the country is still languishing with a
sizeable number of illiterates. The high drop-out rate has resulted in total
disarray in the implementation of the education programmes. Reasons for high
drop-out rates are varied-social, economic, quality, lack of interest and lack
of attraction can be cited as a few examples. It is unfortunate that the
drop-our rate in 1996-97 in class I to V was as high as 39.37%. This explains
the state of affairs obtaining in the country. The committee hopes that the
amendment of the constitution to provide free education to children as a
fundamental right would motivate both Governmental as well as non-Governmental
sectors to take necessary measures so as to achieve universalisation of
elementary education, the ultimate goal of the country. The committee welcomes
the spirit behind the amendment and welcomes it in principle.
15.2. However,
the committee feels that in the enthusiasm to provide this fundamental right,
the quality of education should not be ignored. The education that is provided
should be able to create attraction and interest among the children. The
Committee understands that the National Policy on Education makes a reference
to 'education of satisfactory quality' Quality is the most important aspect of
education which should not be ignored. The Committee strongly feels that
quality aspect has been totally forgotten and children who can afford are
compelled to go to private institutions for better and quality education. There
is, therefore, a necessity of improving the quality. For this, there is an
urgent necessity to improve teacher training. In regard to the point as to
whether there should be a reference to 'Quality' in the proposed amendment, the
committee feels it appropriate to leave it to the Government to either make a
reference to quality aspect in the proposed amendment or not. The committee,
however, strongly recommends that all efforts should be directed towards
providing quality education. Teacher training programmes are not very much
oriented for effective utilisation of human resources. They do not give stress
on techniques and activities that make learning joyful for students. Lack of
follow up measures make them forget and not utilise whatever they had learnt
during their pre-service training programmes. Without primary level teaching or
research experience, particularly on rural schools, teacher educators are
poorly prepared to educate. Most of the teacher educators imparting training in
elementary teacher training institutions do not have primary level
teaching/research experience. This affects the quality of training imparted by
them. The methods of transaction of theory classes of these teacher educators
are generally devoid of active teaching learning approaches. There is no
specific teacher educator preparation programmes. Teacher educators also need
continued assistance for their professional development. The UGC provides
assistance for professional development of teacher educators in teacher
training colleges and departments of education of universities. But such
facilities are at present not available for elementary level teachers
educators. The committee accordingly recommends that teacher training should be
given sufficient importance and emphasis should be laid on improving the
training component.
15.3. The committee takes note
of the fact that the words compulsion and enforcement as proposed in Article 21
A do not go with the theme and spirit of the Fundamental Right. A right is not
given in a spirit of enforcement. The Secretary's clarification that the
compulsion is being looked at as compulsion on the part of the State
Government, is an acceptable proposition. But it should be made amply clear in
the proposed amendment to clear all doubts.
15.4. The Committee understands
it well that with elementary education becoming a justiciable Fundamental
Right, the possibility of increased litigation cannot be denied. The citizens
would have every right to go the courts of law if their fundamental right is
violated. The committee, therefore, urges upon the Government to find out ways
and means to face this challenge.
15.5. The current
education pattern has formal certification after the successful completion of
standard 10th only. This, therefore, means that the children who cannot get
education except when it is free, will have to discontinue their studies before
formal certification, thus closing their further avenues of earning and
employment. Thus, suggestions received by committee were either to extend the
age-limit up to 16 years or certification may be issued at the end of Eighth
standard. The committee, however, feels that increasing the age limit may not
be a viable proposition because of enormous resources that are required and due
to other compulsions of the Government. The Members discussed this at length.
Many Members were of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to put such a
heavy burden on the Government. However, a child should be able to receive some
sort of certificate so as to easily get a gainful employment. The committee,
therefore, feels that the Government may introduce formal certification at the
end of standard 8th to enable the children who come out of the school after 8th
to join some gainful employment or pursue some technical vocational courses
with the help of the certificate. Several Members, however, felt that it may
not be advisable to introduce another Public examination.
15.6. As regards follow-up
legislation, there are divergent views. Some Members of the Committee felt that
there should be a separate central legislation providing for the basic
structure and the details could be made out by the respective states. Whereas
the others did not feel the necessity of a central legislation. The Secretary,
stated that the central legislation may not be able to take care of the
requirements and specific needs of the states. After a thorough discussion in
this matter, the Committee feels that the Centre should not leave everything to
the states. The Centre could make one simple legislation with some skeletal
framework which may also indicate the Central share in the financial burden.
The details can be formulated by the respective states according to their
requirements. The Central Government may, therefore, consider working out the
necessary legislation.
15.7. Imposition of penalties
on parents is one aspect which has agitated the minds of the Members. The
Committee agrees that the penal provision would lead to harassment of the
parents. It is true that the proposed amendment does not talk of any penalty,
but many states in their existing legislations have made penal provisions.
Accordingly, the new follow up legislations may also have similar provisions.
After considering the pros and cons of this, the committee strongly desires
that such penal provisions on the parents should be avoided in the follow up
legislation to be made. The Centre may make necessary provision to this effect
either in the follow-up legislation or in the guidelines that may be issued to
the States. The Committee feels that compulsion should be on State Governments
to provide for essential facilities for UEE rather than on the parents,
majority of whom are struggling for their survival.
15.8. Providing free education
is another important aspect in the proposed Article 21 A (1). On this, the
Committee takes note of the fact that the bill does not define free education.
The Committee understands that there is confusion over the provision of free
education. Many states are already providing free education, but the components
vary from state to state. The Committee has noted that there is a general
feeling that free education means exemption from payment of fees. The Members
were, however, unanimous that free education should not confine just to
exemption from payment of fees. The Committee desires that free education
should also include various other components such as text-books, stationery,
uniform, one meal and transportation wherever necessary etc. The Government may
consider including all these components in the free education.
15.9. Financial implications is
another important aspect of the Bill. In the Financial memorandum, the
Committee has noted that the estimated financial expenditure to implement the
obligation is forty thousand crores rupees every year. The Committee is
constrained to note that the allocations, made to education every year have so
far been very insufficient. From such a situation to go up to Rs. 40,000
crores, in the Ninth Plan is a gigantic task. The Committees strongly
recommends that the required amount should be allocated to achieve the goal.
Unless this is done, a mere constitutional amendment and providing a
fundamental right is not going to serve the purpose. Besides increasing the
allocation, Government may also take steps to reduce unnecessary expenditure to
reduce unnecessary burden on the State's exchequer.
10. The Committee feels that
financial burden may be shared by both the Centre and the States.
Administrative responsibility should be left to states for implementation
according to their convenience.
15.11. The
proposed Article 21 A (1) provides that the State shall provide free and
compulsory education to all citizens of the age of six to fourteen years. The
Committee understands that there is a lot of controversy over the restriction
of age limit of the children between 6 - 14 years of age. It is true that this
provision seeks to take away the rights of children in the age group 0 - 6
years. The Committee is, however, aware that an infant's education in the age
group 0-6 is an enormously complicated one. Much of the education imparted in
this age group is non-formal through the mother and it is difficult to
standardise it. It is all the more difficult to make a justiciable Fundamental
Right. The Committee is also aware that the Departments of Women & Child
Development and Family Welfare are already working to take care of the
requirements of the children in this age group. The controversy in this regard
has arisen because Article 45 does not make any mention of age restriction
whereas Article 21 A (1) seeks to restrict the age to 6-14 years. The proposal
also includes deletion of article 45. As regards deletion of Article 45, the
Committee deals with it in the succeeding paragraph. Coming to Article 21 A(1),
the Committee takes note of the fact that it is proposed to be included in the
chapter III, which provides fundamental right. Due to various practical
difficulties, the provision in the present Article may be allowed, providing
for free education to children of 6 to 14 years in the fundamental right. But
Directive Principles should be followed wherever possible.
15. 12. Now, the Committee will
deal with the proposal to delete Article 45. The Committee is not convinced by
the reply of the Secretary, Education, that this has been done on the advice of
the Law Ministry that after it is made a fundamental right, article 45 becomes
redundant. The Directive Principles, of which Article 45 is a part, were
incorporated in the Constitution with an objective of seeking to achieve the
ideal of a democratic welfare state set out in the preamble. This also embodies
of the State. They are directed towards the ideals of building a true welfare
state.
15.13. Therefore, the Committee
feels that by providing a fundamental right, the very philosophy of the
Constitution which is embodied in the Directive Principle (Article 45) should
not be removed. The purpose of a fundamental right is different from that of
the Directive Principle. The Directive Principle is not merely a moral precept
but is a positive mandate to the State. Article 45 provides a directive on the
State to endeavour to provide free and compulsory education. No conflict should
be seen between the Fundamental Right and Directive Principle. Both are
complementary to each other. Similarly, proposed Article 21 A seeks to provide
Fundamental right to free and compulsory education to the citizens in the age
group 6-14 at present. However, Article 45 seeks to provide free education to
all up to the age of 14 years without any age restriction. Therefore, Article
45, besides, giving a directive on the state to provide free education and
explain the object and philosophy of the Constitution, also takes care of the
children in the age group 0-6 as well. In view of the forgoing conclusions, the
Committee feels that Article 45 is required to be retained in the Constitution.
The Government may, therefore, reconsider its proposal to delete Article 45.
15.14. Clause (3) of the
proposed Article 21 (A) prohibits the State from making any law for free and
compulsory education in relation to educational institutions not maintained by
the State or not receiving aid out of state funds. This issue was discussed by
the Members of the Committee at length. The Members were in agreement that even
though the so called private institutions do not receive any financial aid, the
children studying in those institutions should not be deprived of their
fundamental right. As regards the interpretation as to whether the private
institutions should provide free education or not, the Committee is aware of
the Supreme Court Judgement given in the Unni Krishnan case. This judgement
provides the rule for application and interpretation. In view of the judgement,
it is not necessary to make a clause in the Constitution. It would be
appropriate to leave the interpretation to the courts instead of making a
specific provision in black and white. Some Members, however, felt that the
private institutions which do not get any financial aid, provide quality
education. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to bring such institutions
under the purview of free education. Those members, accordingly, felt that
Clause (3) should not be deleted.
15.15. The Committee, however,
after a thorough discussion feels that this provision need not be there. The
Committee recommends that clause (3) of the proposed Articles 21 (A) may be
deleted. Smt. Hedwig Michael Rego, M.P., a Member of the Committee gave a
minute of Dissent. It is appended to the report.
15.16. The Committee recommends
that the Bill be passed subject to the recommendations made in the preceding
paragraphs.
Minute
of Dissent
Vehemently oppose the State
wanting to introduce free and compulsory education in private, unaided schools.
Clause 21 A (3) must be
inserted as I do not wish the State to make laws regarding free and compulsory
education in relation to educational institutions not maintained by the State
or not receiving aid out of State funds.
A Committee of State Education
Ministers have already considered the issue in view of the UnniKrishnan case,
and found it not feasible to bring unaided private educational institutions
within purview of the Bill.
Hence, I state once again that the proposal Clause "21 A
(3)" must be retained in the Bill.
Yours sincerely,
( MRS. HEDWING PEGO)
PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
SIXTY-THIRD REPORT
ON
THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) BILL, 1997
(Presented
to the Rajya Sabha on 24.11.97)
(Laid
on the Table of Lok Sabha on 24.11.97)
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER, 1997 Kartika 1918 (Saka)
Shri. S. B. Chavan, Chairman 1997-98
1. I, the Chairman of the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, having been
authorised by the Committee, on itsbehalf, present this report of the Committee
on the Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Bill, 1997.
2. The Consititution
(Eighty-third Amendment) Bill, 1997 which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on
the 28th July, 1997 provides for compulsory education of children as a
Fundamental Right. A copy of the Bill as introduced in Rajya Sabha is enclosed
(Annexure - 1)
3. In pursuance of the rules
relating to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees, the
Chairman, Rajya Sabha, referred the Bill to the Committee for examination and
report.
4. A press communique inviting
suggestions/views from individuals, organisation and institutions, interested
in the subject matter of the Bill, was issued on the 18th August, 1997
(Annexure II). Several memoranda containing views/ opinions on the Bill were
received by the Committee. A list of persons who submitted Memoranda is at
(Annexure III)
5. The Committee considered the
Bill in four sittings and heard the oral evidence of some of the eminent
educationists, the Secretary, Department of Education, Union Ministry of Human
Resource Development; Secretary, Union Ministry of Law, Justice and Company
Affairs. A lisit of witnesses, who appeared before the Committee, is at
Annexure IV.
6. The Committee, in its
meeting held on 4th November, 1997 considered the Draft Report on the Bill and
adopted the same for presentation/laying in both the Houses of Parliament.
NEW DELHI
November 4th, 1997. Kartika 16,
1918 (Saka)
B. CHAVAN, CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT