Gujarat High Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Early Education: The Right to Education vs. Age Limits

Gujarat High Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Early Education: The Right to Education vs. Age Limits

“As per the New Education Policy 2020, children are expected to be admitted at three years for nursery, four years for Lower Kindergarten (LKG), and five years for Upper Kindergarten (UKG).This stipulation implies that children must complete a three-year foundational course before entering Class 1 at the age of six.  However, it has been reported that numerous pre-schools in Gujarat and other regions still adhere to the previous criteria, where the age requirement for nursery class admission was set at 2.5 years.” [Pandey, S. (2023, September 6). Illegal to make children below three attend pre-schools. The Tatva].  The state government, on January 31st, 2020, through a notification, specified the age limit for Class 1 admissions in the academic year 2023-24. These petitions were submitted by a group of parents challenging the validity of the notification as their children hadn’t turned six by June 1, 2023.( DeshGujarat. (2023, September 6). No education to child before age of six years: Gujarat HC  – DeshGujarat. DeshGujarat.) The division bench of the Gujarat High Court headed by Chief Justice Mrs. Sunita Agarwal and had Justice V.N Ajaria who upheld the validity of the state government’s notification prescribing the age limit of 6 years of age as of 1st June of the academic year 2023-24 for admission of a child in 1^st standard. In its verdict, the high court emphasized Rule 8 of the Right to Education (RTE) Rules, 2012, which relates to preschool admissions. The rule states that “no preschool is allowed to admit a child who hasn’t completed three years of age by June 1 of the academic year.” The bench observed that forcing children to go to pre-school below the age of 3 years is an illegal act on the part of the parents.

Background of the petition

In the instant group of writ petitions, parents of children of the State of Gujarat, who were below 6 years of age as of 1.6.2023 and have completed or would complete 6 years of age during the Academic Year 2023- 24, seek to challenge the Notification dated 31.1.2020, prescribing the age limit of 6 years of age as on 1st June of the academic year 2023-24 for admission of a child in 1^st standard.

The law points under discussion

In the present case, the court deals with provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009. A combined reading of Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 14, and 15 of the RTE Act, 2009 provides that a child older than 6 years old cannot be denied enrollment in a formal school. Under RTE Rules, 2012, the minimum age prescribed for admission to a pre-school is three years.

Observations made by the Court.

The petitioners argued that the June 1 cutoff date for the current academic year would deny around nine lakh children their right to education. However, the court clarified that a child’s right to free and compulsory education begins after they reach the age of six.

The bench of Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice N.V.Anjaria rejected the arguments that denial of admission will result in infringement of their right to education,

“A conjoint reading of Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 14 and 15 of the RTE Act, 2009 makes it clear that a child above the age of 6 years cannot be denied in a formal school and the State is mandated to take all necessary measures that such a child who falls within the definition of ‘child’ under the RTE Act, 2009, completes his or her elementary education without any rider.”, the Court observed.

Talking about the New Education Policy, 2020, the court observed that “over 85% of a child’s cumulative brain development occurs prior to the age of 6, indicating the critical importance of appropriate care and stimulation of the brain in the early years in order to ensure healthy brain development and growth.”

 Dismissing the petitions, the court observed

“The petitioner – parents of children, who have not attained the age of 6 years as on 1st June of the year 2023, cannot seek any leniency or indulgence, as they are guilty of violation of the mandate of RTE Rules, 2012, which is in line with the RTE Act, 2009. Forcing children to go to a preschool below the age of 3 years is an illegal act on the part of the parents. The contention that the children are school-ready as they have completed 3 years of elementary education in a preschool having been admitted in the Academic Session 2020-21, therefore, does not impress us at all.”

Judicial approach towards Right to Education

The Right to Education (RTE) Act in India has led to several important legal cases and judgments that have helped clarify and enforce the provisions of the act. Here are some notable cases related to the right to education in India:

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 AIR 217: This case laid the foundation for recognizing education as a fundamental right under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to education is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot deny the right to education to a child on the grounds that they cannot afford to pay for it. The court held that education should be made accessible to all children, irrespective of their economic status.

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1: This case focused on the constitutionality of the RTE Act’s provisions related to the reservation of seats in private schools for disadvantaged groups and economically weaker sections. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions.

International Instruments on the Right to Education

 There are several international instruments and agreements that recognize and protect the right to education as a fundamental human right. These agreements outline the principles and obligations related to education at the international level. Some of the key international instruments on the right to education include:

•  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

 Article 26 of the UDHR states that “everyone has the right to education.” It emphasizes that education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages, and that technical and professional education shall be made generally available.

•  International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):

 Article 13 of the ICESCR recognizes the right to education as a fundamental right. It establishes the obligations of state parties to provide free and compulsory primary education, make secondary education generally available and accessible, and progressively make higher education equally accessible to all.

•  Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):

Article 28 of the CRC recognizes the right of the child to education and emphasizes the importance of free and compulsory primary education. It also calls for measures to make secondary and higher education accessible to all children.

•  Convention against Discrimination in Education:

 This UNESCO convention, adopted in 1960, prohibits discrimination in education on various grounds, including race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, and economic condition.

•  Education 2030 Framework for Action:

 This document was adopted as part of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It emphasizes the importance of quality education for all and outlines a set of targets and indicators related to education, including access, equity, and quality.

•  Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4):

Adopted in 2015, this declaration and framework focus on the global commitment to ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030, as outlined in SDG 4.

•  ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (1966):

 This recommendation sets out guidelines for the rights and responsibilities of teachers and emphasizes the importance of education personnel in the realization of the right to education.

•  The Dakar Framework for Action – Education for All:

 Adopted at the World Education Forum in Dakar in 2000, this framework emphasized the goal of achieving “Education for All” and outlined key principles and actions to expand access to education and improve its quality.

•  Right to Education under Different Jurisdiction

The right to education is a fundamental human right recognized by various international and national legal frameworks. Its implementation and interpretation may vary in different jurisdictions, but the core principles remain consistent. Here’s an overview of the right to education in various jurisdictions:

United States:

In the United States, education is primarily a state and local matter. There is no explicit federal constitutional right to education. Instead, education is governed by state constitutions and laws. The Supreme Court of United States has ruled that states must provide an education, but the quality and specifics vary from state to state.

European Union:

The European Union recognizes the right to education as a fundamental right. Member states are responsible for the organization and content of education systems, but they must do so in accordance with EU law, which includes principles of non-discrimination and access to education.

South Africa:

South Africa’s Constitution includes a right to basic education under its Section 29. This right includes access to quality education and prohibits discrimination in education.

China:

China recognizes the right to education in its Constitution and has made significant efforts to expand access to education. However, there are disparities in the quality of education between urban and rural areas.

United Kingdom:

The right to education in the UK is largely governed by domestic laws. The Education Act 1996 imposes a duty on parents to ensure their child receives an education, either by attending school or through other arrangements like homeschooling.

Bajeli-Datt, K. (2023, April 19). 21 States following minimum age of 6 yrs. for Class I admission. The New Indian Express.

The competition puts pressure on the children much before the child can even learn basics of walking and talking properly. The governance of education of child under three years needs special and tender attention. The disparity in implementation of NEP as a standard rule can give rise to multiplicity of litigation in states which differ as it gives uncertainty to future of child who are subject to inter-state transfer due to professional commitment or are looking for better education of child in different state. The present judgment also highlights the tender age of the child should not be subjected to forced education even in preschool although there was no online study available to reflect upon the impact of preschool to the children. “Evidence globally shows, when children enter primary school directly without quality pre-primary education – and thus, without school readiness – it increases the likelihood of them dropping out and not learning to their potential”. [Early childhood education. (n.d.). UNICEF India.] However, disparities in age of sending kids even to pre-school can have greater impact on psychology of child as well as future of child’s education. admitted in violation of the Rules. The Gujarat High Court observed schools which admitted students below the prescribed age and the guardians were to be blamed for sending their children to pursue studies in Junior K.G. in clear violation of the new restriction imposed. Unfortunately, the law does not impose any penalty for violators to check the practice. The gap or disparity in law cause hardships to people.