New Delhi: The Supreme Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to provide a report on the status of the case involving a Muslim kid who was slapped by classmates at his Muzaffarnagar school on the teacher's instruction within a fortnight on Monday. A bench of justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated, "Place the matter on April 26." posting the matter for hearing on that date. The Additional Advocate General, UP will get instructions on the next measures for the prosecution of the offender in the interim.
The ruling was made in response to a petition submitted by Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi's great-grandson, who went to court last August shortly after the incident's footage went viral. The petition brought attention to the UP Police's careless investigation, which started with an attempt to charge the teacher with a minor offense of hurting someone under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Due to the psychological effects of the occurrence on both the victim and the participating students, it also brought up counseling-related difficulties.
The lawsuit brought to light certain aspects of the state government's failure to fulfill its obligations under the Right to Education (RTE) Act to ensure that students receive a free, high-quality education. The top court, which has been keeping an eye on numerous directives issued since September of last year in this area, expressed satisfaction on Monday with the state government's cooperation in offering counseling to the victim and the impacted kids. Regarding this, the supreme court made sure that the state provides counseling in collaboration with reputable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate in this area and ordered a report from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).
The bench noted that there is enough counseling available when it requested an additional affidavit from the state government regarding RTE implementation, etc. before his capacity as Gandhi's attorney, Shadan Farasat filed a request to be included as a party to the case before the highest court on behalf of the victim's father. According to the application, the victim was moved to Sharden Public school in Muzaffarnagar by the state as per the court's orders, and the father, who must drive 28 km to pick up and drop off his son at school, was receiving transportation reimbursement in addition to tuition payments.
The parent told the court that he was being harassed by the school after his ₹200 monthly grant halted in February of this year and the state failed to pay the tuition for the upcoming academic session. The court decided to continue the case on the next day. The top court requested in January of this year that the state guarantee the delivery of the money owed to the victim's father and inquire as to whether any nonprofit organizations would be prepared to assist the state in this respect.
Even with regard to the RTE implementation, the court made the following observation in September of last year: If this is how pupils are treated, what is the quality of education the state provides under the RTE Act? The bench stated, "There cannot be religious abuse in schools," and reminded the state that every student has a fundamental right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A. If the story is true, then other pupils are carrying out the teacher's directive to beat the youngster because he is a member of a specific community. What kind of education does the state offer?
Tripta Tyagi, a teacher, was charged under the severe provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while the case was being overseen by the highest court. At first, Tyagi was not detained because the IPC's section 323 (causing harm) and section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) were among the bailable offenses listed in the case against her.
The instructor was heard stating, "Maine toh declare kar diya, jitne bhi Mohammedan bachche hain, inke wahan chale jao" (I have declared - all these Muslim children, go to anyone's area) at one point in the video, as well as instructing the kids to hit their classmates "hard." When questioned later, she stuck to her original comments and defended her actions by stating that it was crucial to "control" the pupils.
