The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, sharply criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for its lack of action in the Muzaffarnagar school slapping case. The bench, consisting of Justice AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal, expressed their disappointment over the state’s failure to comply with the court’s directives regarding counseling and admission for the Muslim student who was the victim in this case.
Also read- Gandhi Heir Takes Muslim Student Slap Case To SC, UP Govt Response Sought (lawchakra.in)
The incident, which sparked national outrage, involved a school teacher, Tripta Tyagi, allegedly inciting classmates to slap a Muslim student while making derogatory remarks about his religion. The video of this incident went viral on social media, leading to the sealing of the private school in Khubbapur village.
During the hearing on Friday, 10th November, the Supreme Court bench remarked,
“Unless we pass order they won’t do anything. You have to take a stand whether you will do something or want only face-saving.” This statement was in response to the delay in compliance with its previous order dated September 25. The Court further questioned the delayed counseling, asking, “If students are treated in your State like this, then what is the use of expert counseling now after three months?”
The plea in the Supreme Court was filed by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. He sought action against the teacher and a time-bound, independent probe into the incident, along with remedial actions to tackle violence against school children, especially those belonging to religious minorities.
In response to the public outcry, Tripta Tyagi released a video statement, admitting her mistake but denying any communal angle to the incident. She said,
“I may have made a mistake, but there was no communal angle to it.”
Also read- Centre Clarifies CBI’s Independent Status To Supreme Court Amid West Bengal’s Allegations (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court’s stern remarks highlight the urgent need for effective action in cases of communal sensitivity and child welfare in educational settings. The case has brought to the forefront the judiciary’s crucial role in ensuring justice and protecting vulnerable groups in society.