Gujarat High Court
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Dismissing a batch of petitions filed by parents challenging the state government's notification setting the minimum age for standard 1 admission at six years, the Gujarat High Court has declared that compelling children to attend preschools before the age of three is an "illegal act."
The parents had approached the court to challenge the state government's notifications from January 31, 2020, and August 4, 2020, establishing the age limit for admission to Class 1 in the academic year 2023-24.
The parents argued that their children, who are not above 6 years of age, have taken admission in elementary schools in the academic session 2020-21 and have completed elementary education and, thus, are entitled to admission in 1st standard in the Academic Session 2023-24.
However, the court stated that "The petitioners, whose children have not attained the age of 6 years as on 1st June of the year 2023, cannot seek any leniency or indulgence, as they are guilty of violation of the mandate of RTE (Right to Education) Rules, 2012, which is in line with the RTE Act, 2009."
"Forcing children to go to a pre-school below the age of 3 years is an illegal act on the part of the parents who are petitioners before us. The contention that the children are school-ready as they have completed 3 years of elementary education in a preschool, having been admitted in the Academic Session 2020-21, therefore, does not impress us at all," the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice N V Anjaria held in a judgement passed last month. The copy of the judgement was made public only Tuesday.
Citing Rule 8 of the RTE Rules, 2012, which deals with admission procedure in a preschool, the court stated no pre-school should admit a child who has not completed three years of age as of June 1 of the year.
"A bare perusal of Rule 8 shows that there is a prohibition for admission of a child in a preschool who has not completed three years of age as on June 1 of the academic year. Three years of 'early childhood care and education' in a preschool prepares a child to take admission in 1st standard in a formal school," the bench observed.
The judgement states that during the arguments the counsels appearing for parents admitted that they couldn't challenge the requirement of 6 years of age for admission but it was to fixation of cut-off date as on June 1 of the academic year for academic years 2023-24 on the premise that about 9 lakh children in the state would be deprived of their right to education in the current academic session, in as much as, they have been denied admission in 1st standard.
They argued that denial of admission would result in infringement of their right to education recognised by Article 21 A of the Constitution and Right to Education Act, 2009.
The court said that the contention of the parents that "their children are school-ready as they have completed three years of elementary education in a preschool, as they were admitted there in the academic session 2020-21, does not impress it."
It said that as per section 2(c) of the RTE Act, 2009, a child of the age of six years is eligible for admission in a neighbourhood school to exercise his or her right to free and compulsory education till the completion of his/her elementary education.
"The right conferred upon a child by the constitutional provision of Article 21A and Section 3 of the RTE Act, 2009 begins after completion of the age of six years," the court stated.
The judgement notes that a conjoint reading of sections 2(c), 3, 4, 14, and 15 of the RTE Act, 2009 makes it clear that a child above the age of six cannot be denied education in a formal school.
The National Education Policy, 2020 has recognised that children under six years of age require 'early childhood care and education', it said.
As per the NEP, 2020, more than 85 per cent of a child's cumulative brain development occurs prior to the age of six, indicating the critical importance of appropriate care and stimulation of the brain in the early years to ensure healthy brain development and growth, the court noted in its judgement.