A civil rights group named ‘Social Jurist’ has filed a plea before the Supreme Court, challenging a Delhi High Court judgment. The judgment in question declined to direct the Lieutenant Governor (LG) to either give his assent to or return the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015. This bill proposes to prohibit the screening procedure for admitting children to nursery schools.
The plea highlights that even though the bill was drafted in 2015, it remains unpassed. The delay is attributed to the bill being caught between the Central Government and the Delhi Government. The petitioner contends that this prolonged delay is against the interests of children.
The Delhi High Court, in July 2023, dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the grounds of non-maintainability. The court held that it could not interfere with the legislative process. The High Court stated,
“It is not proper for this Court to issue any kind of writ to the Governor and interfere in a legislative process whether to accept or reject a Bill within any timeframe. It is not proper for a High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct a Governor who is a constitutional authority to set a timeframe in matters which come purely within the domain of the Governor. In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Bill has been passed by the House, it is always open to the Governor to agree or to send the Bill back to the House and this Court ought not to pass a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to act by passing a writ.”
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner-NGO emphasized that the primary objective of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 is to shield young children from exploitation and unjust discrimination during nursery admissions in private schools. They argue that this purpose is being thwarted due to the delay in finalizing the bill by both the Central and Delhi governments.
Furthermore, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to argue the necessity of the bill. They assert that the bill aims to ensure non-discrimination among children during admissions and to curb the commercialization of education. The petitioner contends that the unjustified delay of seven years is against the public interest.
