During the previous year, a nationwide uproar ensued following the circulation of a video depicting a teacher encouraging students to physically harm a child within a classroom setting. In response, Tushar Gandhi urgently filed a petition before the honorable Supreme Court for prompt investigation into the matter.
A bench composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the state ought to have been attentive to the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the incident.
In March, a bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka ensured that the state government sought expert assistance from organizations such as HAQ, Muskan, and Childline to counsel the child and his classmates after the traumatic incident. The court observed in its order that the state was “substantially complying” with its directives regarding the nature and depth of the counseling sessions. It emphasized to the state that this effort should not be reduced to mere tokenism but must genuinely address the needs of those involved.
Today, while presiding over this matter, Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing petitioner Tushar Gandhi, raised the issue regarding the lack of provision of fees and stationery for the child. He further went on to suggest that the state is not fulfilling its obligations adequately.
In response to this, Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad indicates that the school and a non-governmental organization (NGO) have been instructed to provide assistance, but further instructions are awaited.
While the petitioner arrested that in this fiasco, Section 12 of the Right to Education (RTE) Act is being violated, and amongst all this, the father of the child is facing problems in order to seek the help he deserves.
Finally, it notes that the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has directed the state to submit a counter regarding compliance with these aspects.
The learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh informs us that the chargesheet is prepared for filing but is pending for sanction. The court has now instructed the respondents to submit a response to the contentions made by the petitioners today. The day’s hearing was later adjourned, and the next hearing is scheduled for May 10th.
