The Supreme Court strongly criticizes Uttar Pradesh and its Education Department for not complying with orders on counselling and admission in the Muzaffarnagar school slapping case.
Expressing discontent over inadequate counseling, the Court assigned Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to address the issue. The Principal Secretary of the Education Department is directed to virtually appear at the next hearing on December 11, 2023.
The Court noted, "The State of UP, especially the Education Department, failed to comply with court orders since September 25. No adequate counseling has been conducted for the victim child and others. The state's approach, as evident from the affidavit, is shockingly inadequate."
The court directed, "Hence, we appoint TISS to recommend the method and process for providing counseling to the students. TISS will also propose the names of qualified child counselors who can offer counseling under TISS supervision."
The case is scheduled for December 11, 2023, and the court instructed, "The Principal Secretary of the Education Department must attend the virtual session. To prevent severe consequences, we expect the Secretary to personally address the matter, ensuring full compliance with the court's orders. Affidavits should be submitted at least three days prior to the next hearing."
ustices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, presiding over the case, addressed a petition by social activist Tushar Gandhi. The petition seeks a thorough investigation into the incident where a teacher allegedly incited students to take turns slapping a Muslim boy. The viral video, dated August, depicts the primary school teacher, Tripta Tyagi, making communal remarks targeting the victim's religion.
Justice Oka, at the beginning, expressed discontent over the non-compliance with orders related to counseling and admission in this matter. He questioned, "Where is the adherence to counseling and admission? There are multiple aspects. The state has not complied. Where is the affidavit?"
Advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the State, replied that a counseling team has been established, comprising three doctors, one psychiatrist, a nurse, and a community representative.
Justice Oka raised concerns about the sufficiency and competence of the professionals involved in counseling, considering the gravity of the incident.
Justice Oka inquired, "Who are those professionals? In such a serious incident, can a nurse or secretary conduct counseling? Have you appointed a child psychologist?"
Previously, the Court had voiced dissatisfaction with the UP Police's handling of the case. It highlighted the delayed registration of the FIR and the use of less serious charges, despite the boy's father explicitly mentioning in the complaint that the teacher had made communal remarks.
The Court stated that the State had a "prima facie failure" to uphold the Right to Education Act, which bars the physical and mental harassment of students and discrimination based on religion and caste. Consequently, the Court mandated that a senior IPS-ranked officer should handle the investigation into the case. The Court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction with the UP Police's handling, citing delayed registration of the FIR and the use of less severe charges, despite the complainant explicitly stating that the teacher made communal remarks. This directive reflects the Court's commitment to ensuring compliance with the educational rights of students.
TAGS: Court dissatisfaction Right to Education Act Physical and mental harassment Discrimination Religion and caste Senior IPS officer Investigation
