Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. All the learned senior counsel submitted that while the State has the power to legislate on this subject, the unconstitutionality springs from the unreasonableness and irrationality. It was submitted that the attempt to unify the four systems cannot be sustained since unequals cannot be treated as equals and it would run contrary to the promise of Article 14. As per Section 4 of the Act, even for adopting English or Tamil as the medium of instruction, approval will be required. It was submitted that the since both the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code are entries in List-III, the State should have obtained the President's assent as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution, especially when the Act intends to incorporate sections relating to bar of suits or initiation of criminal proceedings and without such assent, it is void. The Act is contrary to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention against Discrimination in Education, as our Supreme Court has drawn from such International Conventions while interpreting our Fundamental Rights, as in Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3011. It was submitted that by Regulation 7 of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu, the State assured that the Matriculation Schools will continue to be free as hitherto, to innovate with regard to their curriculum, and this freedom was a legitimate expectation that they had, which was also affirmed in the Full Bench judgment cited supra and now, the State has transgressed its limits. The word "norms" used in the Act is vague and when violation of the norms visits the school with harsh fine, then the penal provisions have to be struck down for vagueness since the norms which have not been clearly specified. Article 45 and Article 51 of the Constitution are violated by this Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that it may be contended by the State that ours is the only State which has hitherto prescribed school syllabus for matriculation schools, and the syllabus has been revised as recently as 2005, for which there has been no complaint and therefore, it is not as if the State has suddenly usurped any power. But the learned senior counsel countered this by submitting that all along, the Regulations had been only recommendatory and not forced down the "throats of the schools". The Schools' right to engage in co-curricular activities is curbed. When computer education has become a necessity for every individual, the syllabus introduced in the Act does not include computer education. "The fundamental postulate of personal liberty excludes the power of the State to standardise and socialise its children by forcing them to attend public schools only. A child is not a mere creature of the State"  vide The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 S.C.C. 717. But the State has actually violated this, by standardising the system. The State has misunderstood quality education to mean stultifying educational progress. It is only at the early age of the child that it is possible for her to assimilate and learn as many subjects as are offered and this Act interferes with that right. The learned senior counsel also submitted that now that the Central Act, viz. The Right to Education Act ('RTE Act' in short) has come into force with effect from 1.4.2010, the impugned State Act would have to give way to the Central Act, in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Now the entire field of elementary education is occupied by the RTE Act and the State cannot lay down the syllabus nor specify norms nor can it punish schools for not complying with the Act so long as the schools are in conformity with the RTE Act. It was submitted that in the Preamble to the Act, it is stated that the four streams of education "are not uniform". The fact that they are not uniform does not mean that they do not provide quality education. Therefore, the fact that they are not uniform cannot justify the introduction of the present system which professes to ensure quality education. Diverse systems of education can equally provide quality education and therefore, the object has no nexus with the provisions of the Act. It is very doubtful whether the object sought to be achieved will become a reality merely because the Act has been introduced. There is also one other factor, i.e., if the Act really intends to achieve a common system of education, then it could not have excluded the other systems which still exist, viz. CBSE, ICSC, Baccalaureate and the children studying under those systems. If these Boards are also not brought under the scheme, then the object of social justice will remain on paper. It was submitted that the teacher will have to adapt the method of teaching depending on whether the school is in a rural area, or an urban area or a tribal area so that it is fine tuned to the local needs, but this Act's rigid formula will defeat the prime object, which is educating the child. The State's professed object can be achieved only after due deliberation, research, collaboration and consultation with experts in the field, but without any of these, the Act has been suddenly introduced. The Act ignores the psychological impact of the child which has been referred to in the Full Bench judgment cited supra. Though it is stated that there was a consultative process, in actual fact, the invitees to the meeting were only "informed" but not consulted. Even the counter affidavit mentions only two dates with regard to the consultation. Two dates would not be sufficient for such an ambitious enterprise and before really examining the issue from all perspectives, the State has brought the Act in haste. It was submitted that as children want to pursue higher education, students of Matriculation Schools find it easier to score marks and their performance in competitive examinations is much better than the students who have studied in State Boards. Now this Act will take away the edge which the Matriculation students enjoyed in the past. The State ought to have brought the State Board students to the level of Matriculation students, instead of which, they are reducing the Matriculation students to a lower level. Learned senior counsel relied on several judgments, which will be dealt with later.

5. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that none of the objections raised in the writ petitions can be sustained. The legislative power of the State is found in Entry 25 of List-III of the Constitution. The object of the Act is to ensure that there is no disparity and division amongst children, so that a child who had studied in a rural school would feel no inferior to a child who studied in an urban school, since the method of education would be uniform. He submitted that the objection raised by the schools itself is questionable since at the stage of Public Examination, all the streams coalesce into one. For Plus One and Plus Two, i.e., XI and XII Standards, it is only the State which decides the syllabus and it is the State which conducts the examination and this position has been so right from 1978. When the students belonging to the various streams have had no complaints in this regard all along, the bona fides of the present objection itself is to be examined. He submitted that the petitioners are not really advancing the cause of the child, but their personal interest. He also submitted that out of the four streams, it was only the Matriculation system which has raised this objection. No Anglo-Indian School or Oriental School has filed any writ petition. He submitted that it is not as if this Act has been brought into existence in haste. Soon after Independence, several Commissions and Committees had deliberated on this issue and they had recommended a common system of education; he referred to the Kothari Commission, the Ramamurthy Report and the Yashpal Committee Report. He submitted that the Act is in conformity with the NCF. He submitted that since the disparity in the education and the heavy load that was imposed on the children, both physical and otherwise, came to the attention of the Government, the Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Thiru. Muthukumaran, the former Vice Chancellor of the Bharathidasan University, to examine the implementation of the Uniform System of Education. The Committee examined all the issues and offered its recommendations. Thereafter, a One Man Committee was constituted under Thiru. M.P. Vijayakumar, I.A.S. (Retired). He looked into the Muthukumaran Report and he also submitted his recommendations. He headed a team of educationalists which visited the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra and reviewed the system that was in vogue in those States and it was after much deliberation that the idea was accepted. He submitted that it is unfair to suggest that without any consultation, without any research and very casually, the Government has brought this system into vogue. He submitted that the Matriculation Schools choose their textbooks in an arbitrary manner and the reasons for their choice are not clear. The Government appointed a Committee to examine the various textbooks which are now used in Matriculation Schools and many of them were found wanting with regard to crucial aspects. He submitted that, that is why in Section 3 of the Act, the Government had laid down the norms for imparting instructions and norms for conducting examinations. He submitted that the present system of education is a colonial import and by referring to the ancient system of education that prevailed in this country, which was individualistic and which developed the potential of each child, submitted that there can be no complaint when a system of education which has its values based in the Constitution of this country is sought to be introduced. He submitted that the textbooks have been chosen with great care by a committee of experts whose credentials are beyond question. He also submitted that there have been various reports regarding the heavy load which a school child bears, both because of the nature of the syllabus and also because of the books the child has to carry. He referred to the negative impact this load has on the child. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in no other State are there so many systems of education. All the other States have only two Boards, the State Board and the Central Board and obviously this pattern has not been prejudicial to the interests of the child. The mere fact that historically this State has had four streams of education does not mean that the State, with its avowed object of ensuring social justice and quality education, cannot bring in a uniform, quality based system of education. He submitted that the Muthukumaran Committee had studied all the different streams and found that they are basically the same and therefore, the uniform system that is now sought to be introduced is only a question of adjustment and modulation of the existing system and not a system where quality is sacrificed. He referred to the affidavit filed where the textbook for each class has been assessed. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that by G.O. Ms. No.159 dated 8.9.2006, the Dr. S. Muthukumaran Committee was constituted, which consisted of representatives of Matriculation Schools, Oriental Schools and Anglo-Indian Schools; so it was only after a due consultative process that the recommendations were made. He submitted that therefore there can be no justification for any complaint. He submitted that this Act is not contrary to the RTE Act. The RTE Act speaks of a curriculum which occupies a larger field, whereas a syllabus only forms a part of it and therefore, both can co-exist. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, it is not as if such penal provisions have been introduced for the first time. Even the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act contain a similar provision and there is an in-built statutory safeguard since without sanction, no proceedings can be initiated. He referred to K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy vs. State, 2007 (5) C.T.C. 113, where the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 was upheld and the power of the State has been clearly stated in the said judgment, and the definition of 'School' in that Act and the present Act is the same so the same schools had come under the legislation then. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that Section 4 of the present Act does not speak of prior permission, it only speaks of approval and therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of the Full Bench judgment. He also submitted that the Act does not forbid the schools from teaching other co-curricular subjects or introducing co-curricular activities. The Act only states that the State syllabus has to be followed. This does not mean that no extra subject can be taught. If the penal provisions are not introduced, the Act will be toothless. He submitted that the right under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute it is subject to Article 19(6) restrictions. He submitted that the Act lays down the maximum number of hours of teaching in a week, out of which the curricular subjects have to be taught in 32 periods and there are eight periods per week where the school has the freedom to teach whichever subject it chooses to. He submitted that the reason for fixing two different dates for implementation of the Act, i.e., the present academic year for Standards I and VI and the next academic year for Standards II and other standards because of the ground realities of preparing the textbooks for each subject. By the year 2011, the Act should be implemented in full swing. He also submitted that merely because a provision for bar of suits is introduced, it does not mean that the President's assent for the Act should be obtained. It is only if that particular provision enters the field which the Central Act already occupies, the President's assent should be obtained and he gave a list of the Acts where there is a similar provision and where only the Governor's assent has been obtained. He also referred to various decisions.

7. The relevant provisions of the impugned State Act are as follows :-

"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

...

(c) "Board" means the State Common Board of School Education constituted under Section 5;

...

(f) "matriculation schools" means a school approved as such under the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools;

...

(i) "school" means.

(i) any primary school, middle school, high school or higher secondary school maintained by the State or any local authority; or

41. There is no dispute that the syllabus is prepared by the State for Anglo-Indian Schools and for Matriculation Schools also. In fact, in the revised syllabus for matriculation schools which was prepared by the High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. A. Gnanam, the objective did not seem to be very different from the objectives that the State intends to introduce by the 'Samacheer Kalvi Thittam'. And, it is clear from the preface that the syllabus that is prepared intends to include a curriculum to facilitate a smooth, seamless transition when the Matriculation students move to the State or Central Board Curriculums in Standards XI and XII. There is no dispute that in Standards XI and XII, all the four streams merge into one. Therefore, students belonging to any of the four streams that are included in the Act will either join the State Board Curriculum for Standards XI and XII or the Central Board Curriculum for Standards XI and XII, depending on the students' choice or the parents' choice. Therefore, ultimately the road leads to the same goal post. The matriculation schools who are the petitioners herein have accepted the Revised syllabus for Matriculation schools without any protest. Their case is that this syllabus is recommendatory and it is not a strait-jacket formula. The State has professed that one of the objectives in introducing 'Samacheer Kalivi Thittam' is to reduce the load on the students. A chorus of objection is raised by the petitioners stating that reduction of learning load equates to reduction in quality. According to them, any syllabus prepared by the State will be inferior to the syllabus that the matriculation schools have followed since the State's object is to reduce the learning load. We do not think we can sustain this objection since in the preface to the revised syllabus for Matriculation Schools brought into force from 2005-2008, it is stated that "there has been a conscious effort to reduce the learning load of the students ... any substantial reform in this aspect should be done only with the joint effort of other Boards". The preface also indicates that this reduction has been made without lowering the competitiveness of the system and the parents' attitude and aspirations.