A plea has been submitted to the Supreme Court, urging a reconsideration of its decision that declined to instruct the Delhi lieutenant governor to either grant assent to or return a 2015 bill proposing a prohibition on screening children for nursery admission.
The review petition, filed by the NGO Social Jurist, argues that the plea gains significance in light of recent Supreme Court judgments expressing dissatisfaction with the governors of Punjab and Tamil Nadu for delaying assent to bills passed and readopted by state legislatures.
The petition cites the apex court’s observation that state governors must act in accordance with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution.
Article 200 outlines the procedure for a bill passed by the legislative assembly of a state to be presented to the governor for assent.
The governor may either give consent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration by the President of India, or return the bill for the legislature’s reconsideration.
On October 13, the Supreme Court dismissed the NGO’s plea, stating that it cannot issue a directive to enact a law.
“Can there be a mandamus to enact a law? Can we direct the government to introduce the bill? The Supreme Court can’t be the panacea for everything,” remarked the Supreme court.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO, asserting that it cannot intervene in the legislative process and instruct the LG to either grant assent to the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, or return it.
Through advocate Ashok Agarwal, the organization lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court, asserting that the child-friendly bill prohibiting the screening procedure for nursery admission has been in limbo between the central and Delhi governments for the past seven years without justification.
The petition argued that this situation is against public interest and public policy.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, while rejecting the PIL, stated that it is not appropriate for a high court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to direct a governor, a constitutional authority, to set a time frame in matters within his domain.
The appeal against the high court’s decision emphasized that the purpose of the 2015 bill is to protect children from exploitation and unjust discrimination in nursery admission in private schools.
The NGO argued that the delay had defeated the bill’s purpose, noting that the Delhi government passed the legislation in 2015, considering the 2013 decision of the Delhi High Court on a PIL filed by Social Jurist.
In 2013, the high court suggested that the government might consider amending the law to ensure that children seeking admission to nursery classes receive the benefits of the Right to Education Act.
The NGO made a representation to the authorities on March 21, 2023, urging them to promptly finalize the bill.
However, on April 11, the Centre responded, stating that the bill was still pending finalization by the two governments.
The NGO highlighted that more than 1.5 lakh admissions occur annually at the nursery level in private schools in Delhi, and children over three years of age are subjected to screening, which goes against the letter and spirit of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The NGO sought the court’s direction to expedite the finalization of the bill banning screening for admission at the pre-primary level.
