Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court decided to hear a petition regarding the admission of Rohingya refugee children in MCD schools, following concerns over their legal status and access to education. The petition questions where these Rohingya families are currently residing, as many have been living in temporary settlements. The court’s decision will address issues surrounding the education of children from refugee communities.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court remarked on Monday that the admission of Rohingya refugee children in state-run schools is a matter that requires its consideration.
A bench composed of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was reviewing a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to admit Rohingya refugee children from Myanmar into local schools.
Advocate Ashok Agarwal, representing the petitioner NGO, emphasized that the aim of the petition was to educate vulnerable Rohingya refugee children.
Justice Kant asked,
“Where are these Rohingya families? You want to take them out of the refugee camp?”
Agarwal responded that these children were living with their families and not in any camps.
Justice Kant noted,
“If they are living in a regular residential area, then your (petitioner’s) point will require consideration. Even if they are confined in a camp, still your point will require consideration, but in a different manner. Then you should ask for educational facilities within the refugee camp.”
The petitioner’s counsel indicated that they would submit an affidavit detailing the addresses of at least 17 children who have been denied admission to MCD schools.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing, granting the petitioner two weeks to file the affidavit.
Previously, on October 29, the Delhi High Court advised the petitioner, Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group, to approach government authorities and make a representation to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the issue.
The High Court expressed that the public interest litigation (PIL) indirectly sought to extend the Right to Education (RTE) to non-citizens through judicial means, stating,
“What you cannot do directly, you are attempting indirectly. First, approach the appropriate authorities.”
The High Court disposed of the plea, indicating that the requested reliefs pertained to significant policy matters and should be directed to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of External Affairs.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that representations had been made to both the Union and Delhi governments to clarify that all refugee children residing in India are entitled to education.
The petitioner noted,
“The said representation was followed by a reminder dated 28.11.2024; however, no response has been received to date.”
The petition filed in the Delhi High Court contended that denying admission to these children due to their lack of Aadhaar Cards violated their fundamental right to education as outlined in the Indian Constitution and the RTE Act, 2009.
The plea asserted that while these children remain in India, they are entitled to constitutional protections, including the Right to Education under Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution, as well as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
It emphasized that the Directorate of Education and the MCD are responsible for ensuring that all students under the age of 14 are admitted to government or MCD schools.