Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MP Sanjay Singh's Plea Against Closure Of 105 Govt Primary Schools In UP

The Supreme Court today(August 18) dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, Sanjay Singh, against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government to shut down 105 government-run primary schools.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the writ petition as matters are already pending before the Allahabad High Court. Before the bench, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, assisted by Advocate Dr Farrukh Khan, apprised the bench of the plight of hundreds of students who are at stake. However, the Court said that since the matter involved the enforcement of statutory rights under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”) and since the High Court is already hearing the matter, it is better for it to decide. 

Sibal then requested that the Court direct the High Court to consider the matter expeditiously. The Court stressed that with the future of thousands of students at stake, the High Court must decide the matter with priority and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.

By a decision dated June 16 and the subsequent order dated June 24, the Uttar Pradesh Government announced the closure of 105 such schools. The said decision was reportedly taken after the government found these schools to have zero to very few enrollments. Therefore, it decided to "pair" these schools with other proximate schools.

In the writ petition filed by Singh, under Article 32 of the Constitution, he terms this decision of the government as "arbitrary, unconstitutional, and legally impermissible action," adversely impacting the educational access of numerous children across the State.

It is stated that the decision violates the constitutional and statutory rights of children under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RTE Act.

Specifically, Rule 4(1)(a) of the RTE Rules requires the establishment of primary schools for Classes I to V within a one-kilometre radius of every habitation having a population of at least 300.

It is stated that children between in the age group of 6 to 11 years, particularly those belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and girls—are the most adversely affected.

"Many parents have withdrawn their wards from schools due to safety concerns and logistical impossibilities, resulting in de facto denial of access to schools, and pushing children back into labour or "domestic work."

"The Respondents have sought to justify the pairing decision on grounds of policy restructuring and alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, pointing to schools with negligible student strength. However, the impugned action has the effect of denying children access to education within the statutory neighborhood limits and fails to make alternative arrangements as per the mandatory requirements under the Rules. The closure or merger of a school, once established under Section 6 read with Rule 4(1)(a), cannot be undertaken on the basis of an executive instruction lacking legislative authority. The Petitioner submits that such executive action is ultra vires the statute and violative Constitution, which prohibits the State from taking actions that infringe fundamental rights," as averred in the petition.

It is further claimed that the executive decision was taken without public consultation and without adherence to the statutory role of the School Management Committees as required under the RTE Act.

The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Sriram Parakkat for the petitioner. Advocate-on-Record Ankit Geol represented the Respondent.