SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu - Appellants
Versus
All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society – Respondent
W.A.No.3075 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.21280 of 2021 & 1209 of 2022
Decided on : 19-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.U.M.Ravi Chandran, Special Government Pleader (Education)
For the Respondent: Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

The court established that a Transfer Certificate is not mandatory for school admission, and stigmatising remarks regarding fee payment violate children's rights under the RTE Act.

Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 5 and 17 - Transfer Certificate (TC) - The court held that a TC is not mandatory for admission to a new school and that stigmatising remarks regarding fee payment on a TC constitute mental harassment under Section 17 of the RTE Act. The court emphasized the paramount importance of a child's right to education over administrative requirements. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 29)

(B) Education - The court reaffirmed that the welfare of the child is the primary concern, and schools must not penalize children for their parents' financial issues. The court directed amendments to the Tamil Nadu Education Rules to align with the RTE Act. (Paras 24, 30)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought a Writ of Mandamus to prevent the requirement of a TC for school admission, arguing that it contradicts the RTE Act. The Writ Court ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the State's appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the mandatory nature of the TC is inconsistent with the RTE Act, which prioritizes children's education. The court ordered the State to amend relevant rules accordingly.

Issues: The main issues included whether a TC is mandatory for school admission and the implications of fee-related remarks on a child's TC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RTE Act's provisions take precedence over state rules, and any stigmatizing remarks on a TC violate the child's rights.

Result: The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgement was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Prayer :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed on 28.10.2021 in W.P.No.16581 of 2021.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) PRELUDE

2) REMARKS OF NON-PAYMENT OR DELAYED PAYMENT OF FEES IN THE TC CONSTITUTE MENTAL HARASSMENT

3) TC IS NOT MANDATORY

4) SOCIO AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS

5) RESPONSIBILITY OF SCHOOLS TOWARDS CHILDREN

6) EDUCATION IS AN ASSET

7) CONCLUSION

State preferred the present intra court appeal challenging the writ order dated 28.10.2021.

2. The respondent instituted a writ proceedings to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the mandatory requirement of obtaining Transfer Certificate by a student from the School where he studied, on getting admission to another School for any reason and to forbear the officials of the Education Department altering or modifying the data of private unaided institutions relates to the details of the student entered in EMIS Portal, without consent of the School Management.

3. The Writ Court adjudicated the issues and granted the relief in favour of the respondent. The Writ Court found that mere indication of the arrears of fees payable by the student, does not have any negative connotation/impact against the student/parents.

4. The State preferred the Appeal mainly on the ground that the findings of the Writ Court, in the impugned order, is running counter to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (herein after referred as RTE Act).

5. In context of the findings made by the Writ Court, the grounds raised by the State and the purpose and object of the RTE Act are necessarily to be considered. Incidentally, the validity of the rules and the matriculation code of the State are also to be looked into in the context of the provisions of the RTE Act.

Prelude:

6. The Transfer Certificate (hereinafter referred as 'TC') is issued to relieve a student from one school and allow him to get admission in another school. The schools insist on providing TC to give admission to students. It is difficult for any student to get an admission in the absence of a T.C. But the fundamental point is that the mandatory rule to provide a TC for gaining admission in a new school goes against the vires of the Right to Education Act. The RTE Act is a milestone in promotion of children’s right to education. The Act makes it a right of every child to get education. The Act makes it obligatory for the appropriate Governments to ensure that every child gets free elementary education. Section 15 of the Act prohibits denial of admission to a child. But this Court on many instances in the past have come across cases whereby children have been denied admission on varied grounds. And the Courts have always given precedence to the welfare and the education of the child over any other considerations.

7. When the object of a legislation itself is Right to free and compulsory education for children, all other arguments take a backseat. Right to Education for the Children is the core feature of the legislation. The right of the schools to get their pending arrear fees or the technicalities in the WMIS system is not the centre of attention for this Court. These are aspects which can be cured through minor modifications. The arrear of fees can be collected in a manner known to law from the parents and the delay in updating the WMIS system can be cured through technical alterations but the education of the child is and will always be the heart and soul of the legislation. The focal point for this Court is the welfare of the children.

8. The hub of the wheel is the children’s right to education around which all other considerations flow. This Court can never allow a child to be stigmatised on the ground of non-payment of fees. The tra

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top