A private school in Bengaluru was in the limelight recently for its alleged reprehensible treatment of students belonging to the poorer strata of society. These children allegedly had their hair cut to set them apart from other students. If these facts are true, the school management must be severely punished. This is the latest incident in the long running saga of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. Can there be a reasoned and objective debate on this issue?

The controversy began when a couple of months ago, the Supreme Court in the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs Union of India upheld the Constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This Act had been contested by a plethora of private schools whose key grievance was that 25 per cent of students inducted would have to come from disadvantaged sections of society.

The primary contention of the private schools was that the Act violated Article 19(1) of the Constitution as their right to carry on with an occupation was being violated . While social injustices have existed for ages, can they be set right at the cost of the freedom to carry on with an occupation? Can the state compel schools to admit children who are unable to pay the mandated fee?

This Act is in many ways a threat to the poor because it mandates the closing of all private unrecognised schools by 2013. This will be a veritable disaster for the education system in India. The Act obliges private schools to match government school salaries and amenities or shut down. If implemented, school fees will rise exponentially, hurting the poor. The Act obliges the government to finance the 25 per cent of reserved seats in private schools. This may be impractical as government grants are always delayed. But even assuming that these funds are speedily made available, they would only cover 25 per cent of the students.

The Act and the subsequent judgement strike at a very basic human quality — free will which entails the freedom to carry out the occupation of one’s choice. If the state were to socialise everything, where will this take us? Stalinist Russia, in an attempt to destroy private enterprise, experimented with collective farming, with horrific results, culminating in the deaths of millions. There are private players in fields like education, medicine, law and other essential fields. If people are happy with the quality of service being provided, they pay a price to enjoy them. Entrepreneurship is what builds nations. Tomorrow the government may decide that every citizen ought to read books. Will it then ask private publishers to bring down the prices so that everyone can read? Will this principle be applied to every conceivable sphere of life?

The state has the responsibility of taking care of its poor. This cannot be achieved by foisting it on private institutions. It will effectively kill private enterprise. A learned American judge once said “What is Constitutional need not be what is right”. Well ,the RTE is neither Constitutional nor is it right.

—The writer is faculty of the School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore and a member of
the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA)