- News>
- Education
Right to education bill fraught with limitations: teachers
The proposed 83rd constitution amendment bill aiming to make education a fundamental right suffers from serious limitations, as stated by several NGOs, parents associations, teachers and trade unions in lament.
The proposed 83rd constitution amendment bill aiming to make education a fundamental right suffers from serious limitations, as stated by several NGOs, parents associations, teachers and trade unions in lament.
Expressing dismay over the lack of transparency in the government's move to table the bill during the winter session of parliament in its present form, which involves the interests of over 3.75 crore children, they said government had not made it clear how the limitations would be addressed and what changes, if any, had been made.
At a meeting organised by the 'Dilli Bal Adhikar Manch' (DBSM) in New Delhi, participants from groups working on education, child rights and child labour said the issue of such vital concern should be thrown open to public scrutiny and adequate time be given for debate inside and outside parliament.
The 83rd amendment bill, drafted in 1997, suggested insertion of new article 21 (a) in the constitution and made it obligatory on part of the state to provide free and compulsory education to all in the age group of six and 14 years. It also suggested amendment to article 51 (a) of the constitution to make provision of opportunity for education a fundamental duty of parents. Those who addressed the meeting included Social Jurist Convenor Advocate Ashok Agarwal, Prof Anil Sadgopal of Delhi University, SCERT director Janaki Rajan and National Alliance for fundamental right to education (NAFFRE) Coordinator Sanjeev Kaura.
The bill suggested omission of Article 45 which imposes an obligation on the state to provide within a period of 10 years of commencement of the constitution for free and compulsory education to all up to the age of 14 years.
Agarwal, convenor of social jurist, which was spearheading the cause to make right to education a fundamental right, said the bill is far from being adequate from the standpoint of ensuring universalizing elementary education and other education related to child rights.
He said article 45 had to be retained except for the part that says ten years of the commencement of the constitution and the 0-6 age group should be included in the right to education. Such right had to be equal for all children irrespective of their social and economic classes. The participants said education had to be declared a priority area and at least six per cent of gross national product be set aside for education and that the state and not parents be made responsible for imparting elementary education.
They said childhood care and education was a fundamental right as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1993 and it was derived from the constitutional provisions. Bureau Report
Expressing dismay over the lack of transparency in the government's move to table the bill during the winter session of parliament in its present form, which involves the interests of over 3.75 crore children, they said government had not made it clear how the limitations would be addressed and what changes, if any, had been made.
At a meeting organised by the 'Dilli Bal Adhikar Manch' (DBSM) in New Delhi, participants from groups working on education, child rights and child labour said the issue of such vital concern should be thrown open to public scrutiny and adequate time be given for debate inside and outside parliament.
The 83rd amendment bill, drafted in 1997, suggested insertion of new article 21 (a) in the constitution and made it obligatory on part of the state to provide free and compulsory education to all in the age group of six and 14 years. It also suggested amendment to article 51 (a) of the constitution to make provision of opportunity for education a fundamental duty of parents. Those who addressed the meeting included Social Jurist Convenor Advocate Ashok Agarwal, Prof Anil Sadgopal of Delhi University, SCERT director Janaki Rajan and National Alliance for fundamental right to education (NAFFRE) Coordinator Sanjeev Kaura.
The bill suggested omission of Article 45 which imposes an obligation on the state to provide within a period of 10 years of commencement of the constitution for free and compulsory education to all up to the age of 14 years.
Agarwal, convenor of social jurist, which was spearheading the cause to make right to education a fundamental right, said the bill is far from being adequate from the standpoint of ensuring universalizing elementary education and other education related to child rights.
He said article 45 had to be retained except for the part that says ten years of the commencement of the constitution and the 0-6 age group should be included in the right to education. Such right had to be equal for all children irrespective of their social and economic classes. The participants said education had to be declared a priority area and at least six per cent of gross national product be set aside for education and that the state and not parents be made responsible for imparting elementary education.
They said childhood care and education was a fundamental right as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1993 and it was derived from the constitutional provisions. Bureau Report