A retired Delhi Public School teacher has moved the Delhi High Court challenging laws that prohibit teachers from giving private tuitions, calling the ban “unreasonable.” The Court will hear the matter next on November 12.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday witnessed intense arguments in a case challenging the rule that stops school teachers from giving private tuitions or engaging in any private teaching work.
The case was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The petitioner, Prem Prakash Dhawan, is a retired teacher from Delhi Public School. He has challenged Section 28 of the Right to Education (RTE) Act and Rules 113 and 123(1)(a)(viii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules).
These provisions together stop school teachers from taking private tuitions or doing any other paid work outside their school.
While hearing the case, the Bench appeared unconvinced by the petitioner’s stand and questioned his delay in approaching the Court. The judges observed that he did not file this plea while he was still working as a teacher.
The Bench remarked,
“The fact that he [petitioner] did not have the guts to approach the Court while he was in service is creating apprehension. He did not approach because it would have affected his service and remuneration,”
Advocate Tanmay Mehta, appearing for Dhawan, explained that many serving teachers might be afraid to challenge such rules because it could lead to disciplinary action against them.
He added that private tuitions are common across the country and that classroom education in several schools is not enough to help students clear competitive exams, forcing them to seek private tuitions.
At this point, the Bench made a sharp observation, saying that if that is the case, then the petitioner himself, being a former teacher, has failed society.
The judges said,
“You are a retired teacher, you have failed the society,”
To this, Mehta replied,
“Maybe I failed… But I am now trying to correct it.”
The petitioner has challenged the legal provisions on the ground that they impose an unreasonable blanket ban. According to Section 28 of the RTE Act, no teacher can engage in private tuition or private teaching activity.
Similarly, Rule 113 of the DSE Rules says that
“no teacher shall undertake private tuitions or private employment or otherwise engage himself in any business.”
Rule 123(1)(a)(viii) also adds that no teacher can
“accept any job of a remunerative character from any source other than the school or give private tuition to any student or other person or engage himself in any business.”
While arguing, Mehta mentioned that replies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act showed that no disciplinary action had been taken against teachers who provide private tuitions. He questioned whether such a complete ban was justified.
Mehta argued.
“Is the ill of a private teacher providing tuition in the evening worse than allowing alcohol? We can’t judge the law based on bad apples. I am saying regulate it, but this blanket ban is unreasonable,”
The Bench, however, disagreed with this reasoning. It gave an example, saying that just because no murders take place in Delhi for several years, it would not mean the government should remove the law that punishes murder.
ALSO READ: “Ellarigu Namaskara”: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju Takes Oath as Karnataka High Court Judge
The Bench observed,
“Suppose in Delhi no murder takes place for 10 years, then we do away with Section 302 IPC? Generation of knowledge, generation of teaching material is not barred if you want to do it for free do it,”
In response, Mehta pointed out that even voluntary or free teaching is not allowed under the current rules.
He said,
“I would be happy if my lords were to clarify that pro bono teaching is not barred,”
After listening to the petitioner’s arguments, the Bench decided to seek the views of the Union of India and the Delhi Government before moving forward. However, since their lawyers were not present in court, the judges scheduled the next hearing for November 12.
As the hearing came to an end, Mehta humorously compared his experience before the Bench to facing fast bowling from the legendary Australian cricketer Brett Lee.
BREAKING | The Taj Story: Delhi High Court Refuses Urgent Hearing On PIL Against Release Of Film
Delhi Government Standing Counsel (Civil), who was present in court, added,
“Even though the bowling was fast, Mehta faced the deliveries on the front foot.”
The Bench concluded the hearing on a light note, remarking,
“This is how the law develops.”
The case will now be taken up on November 12, when the responses from the Centre and the Delhi Government are expected.
Case Title:
Mr. Prem Prakash Dhawan v. Union of India & Ors,
Click Here to Read More Reports On The Taj Story
