Ryan International murder case and NEET troubles show education sector requires urgent overhaul

The murder of a seven-year old-student in Gurugram’s Ryan International School has forced the country’s parents to wake up and take note of how vulnerable their wards are, even on school property. Even as the parents of the victim are demanding strict action against the school management, alleging lax security, the managing directors of Ryan International have sought anticipatory bail claiming that while they oversee all schools from Mumbai, local authorities are in charge of each school. [caption id=“attachment_502108” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Representational image. Reuters[/caption] Terming the death of the victim as unfortunate, they say “the management cannot be held culpable and that they were victims of unfortunate circumstances.” Perhaps they are right. Or not. That’s in the hands of the Supreme Court. But we must look beyond this particular case, tragic as it is and ask ourselves how we can make schools more accountable. This includes framing regulations that directs schools to set up safety committees on their premises, installing surveillance systems and investing in training teachers. The first step should be putting in place uniform safety standards across all schools and strictly enforcing them. Stern action must be taken against those found violating regulations. But is this possible given today’s education laws? The answer, sadly, is no. Parents and protesters clamouring for new laws or stricter regulations for schools, especially those protesting in front of Ryan International, ought to know that the changes they are demanding cannot be enforced on schools such as Ryan International. And the Haryana government can’t take over such schools either, even though many are demanding that Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar do so in this instance.

Chapter IV, Section 10 of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 states: “If the manager of any aided school has indulged in any financial irregularity or administrative mismanagement or neglected to perform any of his duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any rule made thereunder” then the management of such school can be taken over for a limited period not exceeding two years. Ryan International is an aided school that is partly funded by the government but it is also a minority-run institution. And Section 11 clearly states that Section 10 doesn’t apply to minority school - “Nothing contained in section 10 shall apply to aided minority school.”

The story is same in all states. Regulations that are normally applicable to aided or unaided non-minority schools do not apply to minority ones. The root cause of this anomaly is our Constitution. Article 30 Clause 1 gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions. It reads: All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This is also the reason why Right to Education Act, which mandates that schools reserve 25 percent of the seats for students from disadvantaged groups, doesn’t apply to either aided or unaided private minority-run institutions. The founders of the Indian Republic intended to create a protection clause for the minorities so that they could preserve their culture and language through the medium of educational institutions in case the threat of majoritarianism arose. However, over the years, this has created separate legal regimes when it comes to education, which ends up making a hash of rule of law. Earlier this month, the Christian Medical College (CMC) in Vellore, Tamil Nadu refused to admit MBBS students on basis of National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test (NEET). The college argued that NEET violated its rights as a minority institution. CMC Vellore allots 85 percent seats to Christians. Under NEET, this arrangement would have stood but instead of the college selecting students in a discretionary manner, NEET would have chosen the students on the basis of their rankings. One can gauge from this example how even giving up a fraction of autonomy is an anathema to minority institutions. No one is arguing that minority institutions should feel free to do as they like and flout the laws of the land by citing Article 30 (1). In Sidhirajbhai v. State Of Gujarat, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 30 (1) did not give absolute power to minorities and said that the government can set regulations. However, they must pass two tests: a) The regulations must be reasonable (b) It must be regulative of the educational character of the institution and conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for minority community or other persons who resort to it. These two tests give vast powers to minority institutions over their non-minority counterparts. The recent rush among “strong” communities like Lingayats to get the minority tag can be better understood in this context. The perks are simply too lucrative: The institutions don’t have to follow SC/ST/OBC quota while filling faculty posts, they can hire as many non-minority teachers as they need, set independent admission criteria and can avail of state aid up to 95 percent! And as noted above, the State can’t take over these institutions except when they offer unconditional surrender. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government made matters worse by passing the 93rd constitutional amendment specifically excluding minority institutions from government regulations in the field of education. It amended Article 15 and added a new clause.

Article 15 (5): Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

This unprecedented autonomy restricts the ability of the State to frame even common sense regulations and these institutions can’t be held accountable in case unfortunate incidents, such as the murder of the 7-year-old student, occur. This grievous error must be set right at the earliest. The only way to do that is to amend Article 30 (1). Of all the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, this is the only article which doesn’t place any restrictions on its implementation and leaves it to the courts to decide which restrictions imposed by the government are reasonable and which are not. This needs to change. Quickly. Rule of law must reign supreme. Equal protection clause must be given precedence over rights of one section of citizens. Article 30(1) could be suitably amended to reflect these constitutional principles. A new clause 1B could be added to the article stating: Nothing contained in this article shall prevent the State from enforcing the laws of the land. If and when the choice is between maintaining autonomy of minority institutions and implementing rule of the law, the latter shall prevail. Doing so would not only maintain the autonomy of these institutions but also give a clear message that a true democracy cannot afford to keep rights of a section of citizens on a higher pedestal than the rest of us. Everyone must be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Now that would be true secularism.