>> Home >> From the Foundation >> Archives - News

Fundamental Rights of Children to Education: 93rd Amendment
by Azim Premji, Chairman Wipro Corporation

My hearty congratulations to the Government for the cabinet approval of the Constitutional Ninety Third Amendment Bill 2001, to make education a fundamental right. Though the bill is yet to be approved by both the houses of Parliament, it is a concrete step in the right direction. There can be scope for discussion on the implications of education making a fundamental right and how the legislation has to be worded, but I am confident that no citizen of the country who is interested in building the future of our nation would oppose the Bill in principle.

To my mind the biggest significance of this Bill is that the government is committed to provide the necessary resources to realise the fundamental right to education.
In addition to education, becoming a fundamental right, the proposed central law has also underlined the need for education of "Satisfactory Quality". The official stand that "…only if it (education) is of satisfactory quality, will the people be willing to pay the opportunity cost of entrusting their children to schools", sets the spirit and mood of the proposed amendment and the corresponding legislation. This is indeed the right direction to take with regard to the proposed constitutional amendment.

The process of translating intent into law, and then working out the implementation details will necessarily involve a number of educationists, administrators and legal experts. Some of the details that my colleague who recently participated in the discussions held at the National Law School of India shared with me are interesting.

I wish to share here some thoughts on the specifics of the proposed constitutional amendment:

1) Lower age limit:

It has been established beyond doubt that early childhood care and development is an integral part of the overall education and well being of a child. This was also emphasised in the New Education Policy document of 1986 and the revised document in 1992. While it is understandable that the age group of less than 3 years does not necessarily come under the formal definition of "education", it is entirely within the gamut of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and existing Government institutions to work on the pre-school age children of 3-5 years. Can the lower age limit, therefore be decreased to 3 years, which will include pre-school education for children between the ages of 3-5 years?

2) Upper age limit:

The proposed amendment envisages that the Right will be valid for children up to the age of 14 years. It is well known that in order to pursue any further academic/vocational education a minimum level of 10th standard (SSC / SSLC) is expected in most institutions across the country. Further, there is no formal certification of schooling until 10th standard, in the current situation. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by India, which obligates the country to provide education to all children up to the age of 18 years. In light of the above facts, it is strongly recommended that the upper age limit of the fundamental right be revised as follows: "…up to the age of 18 years or completion of 10th standard, whichever is earlier.

3) Define "free":

Although Article 45 of the Directive Principles of State policy indicates free and compulsory education for every child, the word "free" needs to be re-looked at in the new context of the proposed amendment. The present definition of free appears to be limited to one where children do not have to pay any fees. Other supplements to schooling such as uniforms and textbooks are given out as "incentives" to children in Government lower primary schools, and selectively to children above the primary level based on various criteria. The programme for providing free midday meals (in the form of food grains) is also seen as an incentive to attract children to school. However, parents invest financial resources for purchasing stationery, transportation, etc., to enable their children to attend school regularly. This often becomes a deterrent for parents to send children to school. It is therefore recommended that free should include not only fees, free uniforms and textbooks, but also necessary stationery, transportation and any other such expenses that families may be required to incur to send their children to school.

4) Parents' obligations:

As mentioned earlier in this article, the Government has taken the view that a school of "Satisfactory Quality" is essential to encourage children to come to school regularly. This also implies that the parent is interested in making a rational choice about what is good for the child. It is therefore recommended that it must be incumbent upon the State to provide educational opportunities as per established norms to every child in the country and that no penalty be imposed on the parents. Article 51A, which imposes a duty on the parents, with associated penalties may be dropped from the proposed Constitutional Amendment. This will, provide no scope for any kind of harassment of parents (especially the illiterate ones) by the enforcement authority.

5) Define "Satisfactory Quality":

Today, the focus in most schools in the country almost entirely is on teaching and not on learning. If the child does not learn, there are too many alibis. Child not learning, apart from defeating the basic purpose of education, also results in disinterest; drop outs and raises a host of other issues.

Over the years there has been an attempt to assess classroom learning in the form of competencies or Minimum Levels of Learning (MLL). Any proposed legislation that follows the amendment to the constitution must define the term satisfactory quality in unambiguous terms. This will lay the Foundation for a very important transformation that is required for improving the educational set up in the country.

6) The Role of Private Institutions:

Private educational institutions in the country also have an obligation with respect to achieving the national goal of universalisation of elementary education. It is therefore suggested that the proposed Central legislation work out the modalities of how private institutions will also be involved in discharging this important national duty.

7) Providing the Necessary Financial Resources:

The first bill introduced in 1997 was introduced by the then Minister for Human Resources Development S. R. Bommai. At the time, it was estimated that nearly Rs. 8000 crore per year additional expenditure would be required to implement education as a fundamental right. The numbers have been reviewed more recently, and the estimate is that the additional requirement of funds is close to Rs. 14,000 crore per year for the next 10 years. The State must make whatever financial resources are necessary to implement education as a fundamental right.

There are other issues such as confronting the child labour, creating a huge awareness regarding the new legislation among parents, community members and the members of the education departments of the government. Only a well-orchestrated effort on all the fronts will achieve the goal.

Amending the Constitution to reflect this national priority will put the focus precisely where it belongs: Educating India's children is non-negotiable.

This article appeared in The Times of India, December 2001

Top