1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

W.P.No. /2011 (PIL)

BETWEEN:

(1) Rashtrakavi Dr.G.S. Shivarudrappa, M.A, Ph.D

S/o Guggeri Shantaveerappa,

Poet & Literary Critic,

Aged about 74 Years,

Professor & Director (Retired),

Centre of Kannada Studies,

Bangalore University,

Bangalore.

(2) Padmabhushan Prof. U.R. Ananthamurthy,

S/o.Udupi Rajagopala Acharya,

Aged about 79 years,

Retired Professor of Indian Literature in IGNOU,

Recipient of Jnanpeetha Award (1994),

Former Vice Chancellor,

Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Former Chairman,

National Book Trust, New Delhi, and Former President

Kendra Sahitya Academy, New Delhi

R/a. #498, 6th A Main, RMV 2

nd Stage,

Bangalore.-560094.

(3) Padmabhushan Dr. Girish Karnad,

S/o Raghunath Karnad,

Age: 79 years,

Recipient of Jnanapeetha Award (1999)

R/a No 697,15th Cross,

JP Nagar,2nd

Stage,

Bangalore - 560078

(4) Padmabhushan Dr. Chandrashekar B. Kambar,

Age: 74 years,

Founder Vice Chancellor,

Kannada University, Hampi,

Recipient of Jnanapeetha Award (2010),

2

Former Chairman, National School of Drama Society,

New Delhi and Karnataka Cricket Academy and

Former Member of Legislative Council,

R/a, “Siri Sampige”,No.44,1st Main,

4th

Block,BSK 3rd

Stage,

Bangalore-560085. …..Petitioners

And :

(1) The Commissioner for Public,

Instructions in Karnataka,

New Public Office,

K.R.Circle,Bangalore-560001

(2) State of Karnataka

Rep. Secretary,

Department of Primary and Secondary School Education,

M.S.Buildings,Bangalore-560001. ….Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The above named Petitioners state as follows:

1. In this Public Interest Litigation to enforce The Fundamental

Right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, the

petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to

implement the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009,while questioning the legality and validity of circular dated

24/09/2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILEENA:1:2011-12,

Annexure-A, Circular dated 29/09/2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)

SA.SHA.VILEENA:1:2011-12, Annexure-B resulting in closure of 3073

Government run Lower Primary Schools and 101 Government Higher

Primary Schools.

3

2. All the four petitioners are very well known Kannada Literary

figures. The first of them has been crowned as the Rashtrakavi which is

a rare distinction. The other three petitioners have been conferred with

the highest Literary Award in the country namely, Jnanapeetha Award.

The last three petitioners are also conferred with the Padmabhushan

Award by the President of India. The petitioners seek leave of this

Hon‟ble Court to present a more detailed credentials of all the four

petitioners at the time of hearing.

3. The petitioners have been waging a relentless battle to provide

Right to Education in mother tongue to all the children of Karnataka. In

early 1980s Karnataka witnessed an epoke making movement popularly

known as `Gokak Movement‟. The petitioners were instrumental in

organising and leading the said movement in order to provide universal

education to all children in Kannada medium. This movement lead to

framing of very healthy education policy promoting mother tongue as

the medium of instructions in the neighbourhood schools. The

petitioners have preferred this writ petition as a public interest litigation

on behalf of millions of children who are going to be deprived their

fundamental Right to Education in neighbourhood schools. The

petitioners are aggrieved by the respondents‟ failure to enforce the

fundamental Right to Education while allowing mushrooming of English

medium schools in the private sector by directing closure of thousands of

Government Kannada Primary and Secondary Schools in the State.

Facts of the Case:

4. Education is the bedrock for an egalitarian Society. It is the

foundation stone on which democracy succeeds. Therefore, it is very

4

important that primary education is provided to every children and that

education shall be of one standard, one syllabus and one value. Dr.

Rammanohar Lohia, a great a political ideologue and a socialist leader

once said,

“All primary schools in socialist India shall be run by

Municipalities and District boards and all fancy schools shall

be closed down… That nation which gives rise to such

wide gulfs in education is fated to break up; such education

must further deepen and split the crevices within the nation.

All the people must be pulled up by however slow degrees; all

school going children must go to common schools.”

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen said “To say that India does not have

money for education (and health care) is absolute, utter unmitigated

nonsense”.

Mahatma Gandhi said :

“I will give you a talisman, Whenever you are in doubt, or

when the self becomes too much with you, apply the

following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the

weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself,

if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to

him… Will it restore him to a control over, his own life

and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj

(freedom) for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and our self melt away”

5

5. State sponsored free and compulsory education was one of the

major demands even during the freedom struggle. Mahatma Jyotiba

Phule had demanded such education in the 19th century itself while

arguing and providing evidence before the Education Commission,

popularly known as William Hunter Commission, 1882. He and

Dadabhai Navroji demanded state sponsored free and compulsory

education for all children. During the later stage of freedom struggle, the

demand for the Right to Education gained momentum across the nation.

Education which was the central subject in the beginning of the

Constitution was transferred to the provinces so as to ensure

decentralisation after the failure of diarchy. Particularly after realising

the importance of education and having seen educational qualification as

requirement for voting and contesting elections under the Government of

India Act,1935 several important developments took place demanding

free and compulsory education. Education and freedom movement

helped to move towards eradication of backwardness. It is important to

note that the demand for free and compulsory education was the product

of the freedom struggle.

6. During the framing of the Constitution, free and compulsory

education was upper most in the minds of the founding fathers .Several

provisions came to be incorporated guaranteeing right to education, the

importance of right to education was such that the constitution put a time

limit to achieving this target within a period of 10 years after the

Constitution came into force. Under Art 41, the State was required to

make effective provisions for securing the right to education, under Art

45 within a period of 10 years, the Government was required to provide

free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.

6

Simultaneously, it was mandate under Art.24 of the Constitution,

prohibiting employment of the children up to the age of 14 years in any

factory or mine or in any other hazardous employment.

7. The founding fathers deliberated a great deal to incorporate

necessary provisions in the Constitution guaranteeing right to education

to every child. While prohibiting child labour they wanted to ensure that

the child shall be kept in an educational institution till the age of 14

years. It is for this reason that right to education is not restricted to

primary education. While dealing with the amendment proposed to the

draft Article 36, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar had this to say:

“Sir, I accept the amendment proposed by my friend,

Mr.Maitra, which suggests the deletion of the words “every

citizen is entitled to free primary education and”. But I am

not prepared to accept the amendment of my friend,

Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad. He seems to think that the objective

of the rest of the clause in Art 36 is restricted to free

primary education. But that is not so. The clause as it stands

after the amendment is that every child shall be kept in an

educational institution under training until the child is of 14

years. If my hon’ble Friend, Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad had

referred to Article 18, which forms part of the fundamental

rights ,he would have noticed that a provision is made in

article 18 to forbid any child being employed below the age

of 14.Obviously,if the child is not to be employed below the

age of 14,the child must be kept occupied in some

educational institution. That is the object of article 36, and

7

that is why I say the word “primary” is quite inappropriate

in that particular clause, and I therefore oppose his

amendment.” (Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume

7,Page.540, Para 2.)

8. In the year 1951, the Secondary School Commission was

constituted to prepare the text books and common syllabus for all

students. The report on the National Education Policy for all students.

The report on the National Education Policy (Kothari Commission 1966)

provided for common syllabus suggesting that public funded schools be

opened for all children irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion ,

condition of social status. Quality education should be made accessible

to all children – rich and poor. Tuition fee should not be charged for any

child. These recommendations of Kothari Commission were reiterated

by the Yashpal Committee in the year 1991.

Judicial Contribution

9. The Contribution of an Indian judiciary to promote right to

education is very important factor in shaping the right to education in

India. The Constitution had not initially enumerated right to education as

a fundamental right even then the Indian judiciary always considered the

right to education as an important right. This aspect was highlighted in

Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956.The Delhi High Court

declared right to education as a fundamental right in Anand Vardhan

Chandal V. Delhi University, AIR 1978 Del 308.The Supreme Court

treated right to education as a fundamental right in Mohini Jain V. State

of Karnataka,1992 (3) SCC 666, Unnikrishnan J.P V. State of Andhra

Pradesh,1993 (1) SCC 645 and T.M.A.Pai Foundation V. State of

8

Karnataka,2002 (8) SCC 481.It is in the light of these pronouncements

that right to education is a fundamental right .The Parliament also

thought it fit to specifically incorporate right to education as a

fundamental right. Accordingly, the Parliament amended the

Constitution by inserting Art 21 A, by the Constitution (86th

Amendment, 2002).It was declared that “….nothing provokes and

stimulates thought and expression in people more than education.

Impugned Action

10. In order to implement the said fundamental right, the Parliament

has enacted the right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 which has come into force with effect from 1.4.2010.In order to

implement the act and make right to education a meaningful

fundamental right, the government of India have taken all necessary

steps including providing resources for implementation of the provisions

of the Act. However, the respondents herein have totally ignored the

mandate of the constitution as also the provisions of the said act. The act

has not been implemented so far by the government of Karnataka. Even

the rules contemplated under Section 38 have not been framed. On the

contrary in total negation of the same, the respondent have now issued

the offending orders. By the OM (Annexure A) 590 Lower Primary

schools and 27 Higher Primary schools have been directed to be closed

down by shifting the students and the teachers to other schools. It is

further directed by this OM that every academic year steps should be

taken to close down all schools where enrolment is below 5 students and

steps in accordance with the OM be taken to transfer the student and the

teachers to other schools. Circular dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure B) is

another direction to initiate steps to close down 2483 Lower Primary

9

schools and 74 Higher Primary schools. Wherever it is found that it is

found that the no. of students in a school is less than 10 proposals to

transfer such students to nearby schools are directed to be prepared and

submitted. It is further directed that from the next academic year the

student shall be admitted to only such schools to which the student had

been transferred during the current academic year. This process is

directed to be initiated in the month of November and completed before

December and all necessary steps to be taken by the end of 15th of

February to close down the schools and to transfer the students to other

schools. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioners have approached this

Honourable Court with this Public Interest Litigation.

11. The petitioners have not filed any other writ petition seeking

similar reliefs.

12. As the petitioners have no other alternative and efficacious

remedy, they have approached this Hon‟ble Court under Article 226 of

The Constitution of India on the following grounds.

GROUNDS

13. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India states as follows :

“21A. Right to Education – The state shall provide free

and compulsory education to all children of the age of

six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by

law, determine”.

In order to strengthen the social fabric of democracy and provide equal

opportunity to all and to achieve role of universal elementary education

10

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has

been enacted so that the values of equality, social justice and democracy

and the creation of a just and humane society be achieved through

provision for inclusive elementary education to all. Under section 3 of

the Act, the fundamental Right to Education is guaranteed to every child

in neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.

Section 4 of the Act ensures that those children who are not in School

should be admitted in a class appropriate to his or her age. Section 6 of

the Act provides that the appropriate Government or Local Authority is

under a duty to establish a neighbourhood, if not already established.

Under Section 8 of the Act, the appropriate Government shall provide

free and compulsory elementary education to every child and ensure

availability of neighbourhood school as specified in Section 6 of the

Act.

14. In the light of the provisions of Article 21A read with the above

provisions of the Act, it is the duty of the respondents herein to

guarantee to every child the fundamental right to free and compulsory

education in a neighbourhood school till the age of 14 years. In that

view of the matter, it was of utmost importance that the respondents

frame the rules under section 38 of the Act and implement the provisions

of the Act in toto and open neighbourhood schools, where there are

none, without any delay. In the circumstances, failure to do so is a clear,

wilful and wrongful refusal to perform the duties cast on the respondents

and it is therefore just and necessary to issue a Writ of Mandamus to

implement Article 21A and the aforementioned Act after framing the

Rules in the interest of justice and equity.

11

15. The actions of the respondents in directing the closure of 590

Lower Primary schools and 27 Higher Primary schools under Annexure

A and to further initiate steps to close down 2483 Lower Primary

schools and 74 higher primary schools as per Annexure B are wholly

without authority of law and unsustainable for the following reasons :

(a) The said action is arbitrary, capricious and

whimsical and is violative of rights of children

of Karnataka guaranteed under Article 21A read

with Article 14, 15 and 21.

(b) The fundamental Right to Education is guaranteed

to every child. It is wholly impermissible to

compel the child to travel a distance of 6 Kms(six

kilometres) and above in order to access the

school. While it is the duty of the respondents to

open neighbourhood schools, it is not open to

them to deny even the existing opportunities by

closing neighbourhood School, on the pretext of

lower enrolment of students. Since the right is

guaranteed to every child even if there are only

handful of students in a school it is the duty of the

respondents not to close down the schools. The

reasons given under Annexure A and B for closure

of Schools is irrelevant and is extraneous to the

concept of Right to Education guaranteed to every

child in neighbourhood School. The impugned

action of the respondents is therefore violative of

12

rights guaranteed to the children under Article 14

and 15(1) and Article 21A of the Constitution of

India and hence unsustainable.

(c)

(d)

Under the Act every child has the right to free and

compulsory education in a neighbourhood school

under Section 3 read with section 6, 8 and 9.

Further, in view of the mandate of Section 19 and

25 every such School should be provided with two

teachers. In that view of the matter, it is wholly

impermissible to close down the schools.

The impugned order is said to have been issued in

the interest of quality education and to strengthen

the Schools in which the neighbourhood schools

are merged. This is wholly extraneous to the

power, functions and responsibilities cast on the

respondents under the aforesaid provisions. If the

number of students is small that will in no any way

bring down the standard of education. On the

contrary lower the number higher will be the

attention paid by the teacher to each and every

student. This will so as to personally ensure the

learning and welfare of the child. Teachers will be

in a position to give greater personal attention to

individually develop the personality of a child and

also give quality time to each child. Therefore,

dwindling of the number of students will in no

13

way bring down the standard of education and

hence the said ground is an irrelevant ground.

Likewise strengthening the other School to which

the neighbourhood school is merged also cannot

be the reason to close down any neighbourhood

School. It is the duty of the respondents to

strengthen all the existing neighbourhood schools

and to ensure that they are maintained and

administered efficiently. Their only duty is to

open neighbourhood school where there are no

such schools in the neighbourhood and under no

circumstances can an existing neighbourhood

school could be closed down.

16. Under Article 243(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State

to endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be

necessary to enable them to function as institutions of the self

government. Such laws should provide for devolution of powers and

responsibilities upon the Panchayat with respect to preparation of plan

for economic development and social justice and implementation of the

schemes for economic development and social justice in relation to

matters listed in the XIth

Schedule. Accordingly, under Entry 17

education including primary and secondary schools is entrusted to

Panchayat under the XIth

Schedule. In obedience to the said

constitutional mandate the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 has made

elaborate provisions to entrust the entire matter of primary and

secondary education to the Panchayat. Under sub-section (1A) of

Section 58 it is the obligatory function of the Gram Panchayats to make

14

reasonable provisions within every Panchayat area to ensure universal

enrolment of children in primary school. Under Schedule I of the said

Act at Entry XIII education – including primary and secondary schools,

is specifically enumerated as obligatory function of every Gram

Panchayat. It is the duty of the Panchayat to permit public aware ness

and ensure participation in primary and secondary education and further

ensure full enrolment and attendance in primary schools. Likewise

under Schedule II Entry XIV read with Section 145 casts a similar

burden on the Taluk Panchayat. Schedule III Entry XV read with

Section 184 have imposed a similar duty on Zilla Panchayat. This

obligatory function of the Panchayat is carried further by the mandate of

the Right to Education Act, 2009. Under section 9 thereof, every local

authority shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to

every child. It shall ensure availability of neighbourhood school and

further ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child

belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and

prevented from pursuing and completing elementary education on any

ground. It is also the duty of the Local Authority to maintain records of

children residing within its jurisdiction and to ensure and monitor

admission, attendance and completion of elementary education residing

within its jurisdiction. It is also its duty to provide infrastructure

including school building, teaching staff and learning materials besides

providing special training as required under section 4 of the Act and

also ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the

standards and norms specified in the Schedule. Even where there are

migrant families it should ensure the admission of their children. In that

view of the matter, since it is the fundamental duty of every Panchayat to

provide for a neighbourhood school, to maintain them and to ensure

attendance in such schools, the respondents have no manner of right or

15

authority whatsoever to interfere with the establishment and

administration of such schools in the light of the aforesaid provisions.

Hence the impugned actions are wholly without authority of law.

17. Moreover under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, it is once

again the duty of the respondents to enforce compulsory primary

education. Under sections 11 and 12 they can command the Local

Authority to take necessary steps in that direction. Under Section 13,

Attendance Authorities are to be appointed and further to appoint as

many persons as are considered necessary to assist the Attendance

Authorities. It is the duty of the Local Authority and the Attendance

Authority to prepare as early as possible the list of children in a specified

area and it shall be the duty of the Attendance Authority to ensure the

attendance of the child in the manner provided for under the said

provision. Under section 37 of the Act, an Expert Body is required to be

constituted in the matter of making provisions for educational facilities.

Further under section 109 a State Education Council is required to be

constituted for the purpose of advising the Government on matters

pertaining to educational policies and programmes. Under section 110

there shall be a Standing Committee of such educational Advisory

Committee for each of the department including Department of Public

Instruction. Under section 111 a separate Advisory Committee for

primary and secondary education may also be constituted. Strangely no

such Advisory Committee or Advisory Body has advised the

respondents to close any school in the manner it is now sought to be

done as per Annexure A and B. As a matter of fact SABE has not even

held a single meeting much less has it framed any policy. In the

circumstances, the respondents have unilaterally embarked upon this

disastrous course thereby doing the greatest damage to the most

16

vulnerable sections of the Society by denying neighbourhood schools.

The same is arbitrary and unsustainable besides being without authority

of law.

18. Prior to the Education Act, the establishment and administration

of school was governed by Grant-in-Aid Code and the said Code has

made elaborate provisions providing for starting new schools. Under

Rule 10 it was specifically provided that a new primary school shall

ordinarily be started by the Government. Under Rule 11 one of the

fundamental requirements to sanction opening of a private School was to

ensure that there is need for such an institution in the locality without

involving any unhealthy competition in the locality with the existing

institution of the same category in the neighbourhood. The main criteria

for starting an institution shall be the educational requirement of the

locality. This being the basic limitation for permitting any new private

school to be opened, the respondents have indiscriminately and in utter

violation of the above Rules allowed the mushrooming of the private

educational institutions in every locality. In violation of all canons of

law freely the education sector has been privatised and now in order to

help such private Schools the impugned action has been taken. As a

matter of fact even now the Respondents are encouraging opening of

new English medium private schools. On 24.9.2011, simultaneously

with the closing of the Kannada schools under Annexure A and B, the

Respondents have unveiled a new policy to open English medium

private schools. A copy of the circular issued in that behalf as produced

here with and marked as Annexure C.

19. The dwindling of number of students is only a ruse and a

camouflage to aid private educational institutions. In view of the fact

17

that Right to Education is a fundamental right and in view of the fact that

this casts a fundamental duty on the respondents to provide for such

right it is not open for them to close down the existing Schools on any

ground whatsoever. On the contrary they should take steps to prevent

opening and running of private schools to strengthen the

neighbourhood schools. Hence, the impugned action is a fraud on

power and is malafide action taken by the respondents solely with the

object of commercialisation and privatisation of the primary education

and hence violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and

21A of the Constitution of India.

20. It is also necessary to mention here that under Rule 17 of the

Grant-in-Aid Code in all primary schools the medium of instructions

shall ordinarily be regional language or the mother tongue of the child.

English medium schools or English medium sections in the existing

primary schools may be opened only with the previous permission of the

Directorate. Contrary to this mandate of the Rule, schools which are

established to provide education in Kannada language are superistiuosly

allowed to use English as medium of instructions. From the inception

children are taught in English medium in wholesale violation of the said

Rule. Apart from the fact that the school which plays fraud will never

set a good example for the students studying in such school, the children

who are taught from the inception to practice deception and break the

law from childhood will never honour rule of law in future.

21. It is also necessary to mention here that where permission is

granted to open English medium schools under Rule 12, it can only be

for the benefit of students whose mother tongue is English; students

whose parents belong to All India Services, central services and are

18

liable to be transferred from State to State; students belonging to

migratory group; students whose parents are employees of Banks, Firms

and other Business Concerns which have branches in more than one

State and the employees of which are liable to be transferred from State

to State; students whose mother tongue is minority language for which

there is no provision in the school in the locality. This requirement is

never adhered to or enforced. On the contrary schools which are

established to provide education in Kannada medium have been freely

allowed by the respondents to be imparting education in English medium

without any valid permission. Under Rule 12 such instruction in English

medium is imparted not for the purpose contemplated under Rule 12 but

to the students whose mother tongue is Kannada in wholesale violation

of Education Act and the aforestated provisions of Grant-in-Aid Code.

22. The Schools which are being closed down pursuant to the

impugned action of the respondents have been in existence for decades if

not centuries. Behind each such School there is great struggle and

contribution of the local citizens in establishing that School. It is

particularly in areas dominated by the SC, ST and BT the schools are

facing closure. It is these sections which are statutorily recognised as

„Disadvantageous Sections‟ which are required to be provided with

neighbourhood schools to ensure that every child from these

communities is guaranteed the Right to Education. Since all these

sections are also socially and educationally most backward the impugned

act of closure will seriously jeopardise the advancement of Scheduled

Castes , Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes and permanently

prevent them from joining the main stream and reach a level playing

field. This is opposed to the very constitutional ethos and would be

destructive of the very heart and soul of the constitutional goal to

19

establish an egalitarian society. Hence, the impugned action is liable to

be declared as unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative.

23. In these circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in

closing down the Kannada Government Lower Primary Schools and

secondary schools is a fraud on the Constitution, freely indulged in by

the respondents solely with the object of commercialising and privatising

education and to divest the State of its power to establish, administer and

regulate such educational intuitions. Since this act is detrimental to the

State and public interest it is sure to advance commercialisation of

education and promote private educational institutions, the entire

exercise is malafide and is a fraud on power violating Articles 14 and 15

(1) of the Constitution of India.

Grounds in support of interim prayer

24. Every child has a fundamental right to free and compulsory

education. The impugned action of the respondents is an affront to the

Constitution and is a direct violation of the said fundamental right

guaranteed to every child in the State of Karnataka. Majority of the

schools, if not all, which are going to be subjected to the act of closure,

transfer of students and teachers under the impugned circulars for all

schools located in the tribal areas which are populated by the Scheduled

Tribes or the hamlets which are the exclusive habitats of scheduled

Castes. In the circumstances, driving a child at the tender age of 6 years

to travel a distance of 6 Kilometres and ore to attend a school every day

is nothing but an at to take the child out of the school which is prohibited

under the new dispensation brought above by making the Right to

Education a fundamental right. Thousands of children who are going to

20

be affected will exclusively come from the lowest strata of the society

viz., the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others coming below

the poverty line. In this view of the matter, if the impugned circulars are

given effect to, it will jeopardise the right to education of these children

and produce generations of illiterate uneducated people coming from

these neglected margins of the sections of the society. The injury

inflicted on such a vast human sea by denying them education cannot be

compensated in terms of money. The institutions which are going to be

covered by the two impugned circulars are institutions which have been

in existence for several decades. The hasty action to close them will

result in an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of

money. It is therefore just and necessary to protect the interest of this

vast human sea of thousands of children coming form the lowest strata

of the society from remote and inaccessible areas of Karnataka through

an interim order as prayed for, failing which, it will seriously jeopardise

the career of thousands of students and families in the State.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon‟ble

Court be pleased to:

(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

directing the Respondents to implement the Right of children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009)

(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

directing the Respondents to frame Rules for carrying out the provisions

of the aforesaid Act under Section 38 of the Act.

21

(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing

Official Memorandum dated 24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2 (2)

SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12 (Annexure A) and Circular dated

24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12

(Annexure B).

(4) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the Respondents to take comprehensive measures to

strengthen the enrolment and attendance in the schools which are

covered under Annexures A and B, if necessary, by withdrawing the

permission granted to open private educational institutions which are

enrolling students from the villages and areas where the aforementioned

schools are located.

(6) Direct the respondents to restore and reopen all Government

Kannada Primary and Secondary Schools so far closed, merged or

shifted after the Right to education was declared as a fundamental right.

(7) Grant such other relief‟s as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit to in the

facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs in the

interest of justice and equity.

Interim prayer

Pending disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioners pray

that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to stay the Official Memorandum

dated 24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12

(Annexure A) and Circular dated 24.9.2011 bearing

22

No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12 (Annexure B) and all further

proceedings pursuant thereto in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore,

Date: 3.12.2011 Advocates for Petitioners

Address for service: :

M/s Ravivarma Kumar Associates,

Advocates

44/1,Bharat Apartments,

Fairfield Layout,Race course Road,

Bangalore – 1.

23

Locas Standi

(2.1) The first petitioner is a well-known literary critic and has been

decorated with the title of Rashtrakavi conferred by the Government of

Karnataka in the year 2007. He is a winner of Central Sahitya Academy

Award (National Award) and has been conferred honorary doctorates by

the University of Mysore, Kannada University, Kuvempu University and

Bangalore University.

(2.2) The petitioner No.2 is an internationally renowned prominent

writer of the Navya Movement in Kannada Literature. He is regarded as

one of the most important authors in India having studied English and

literature in Mysore and Barmingham where he had studied for Ph.D. He

has been hailed as a Gandhian Socialist. He is a former Vice Chancellor

of the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam, Chairman of National

Book Trust of India and President of the Central Sahitya Academy, New

Delhi. He was Professor in English literature in University of Mysore.

He was a guest facility in several universities in Europe and USA. He

was the Chairman of Film and Television Institute of India,Pune. He has

published 5 novels, 1 play, volumes of short stories in Kannada and

several literary stories published in English. He was honoured with the

highest literary Award Jnanapeetha Award in the year 1994.He was

decorated by the Government of India with „Padmabhushan‟. His most

significant novel „Samskara‟ was filmed in the year 1970.

(2.3) The Petitioner No.3 is a well known literary figure in Karnataka.

He is a recipient of Jnanapeetha Award from Government of

India(1999) which is the country‟s highest literary Award. He is also a

recipient of Kalidasa Sanman. He was decorated with Padmabhushan

24

Award in 1992.He has been honoured doctorates by Universities of

Karnataka,Dharwad,Vidyasagar University, and University,

Bhubaneshwar. He has served as member of jury of Indian Film

Festival,New Delhi and Lucknow. He is scripted and presented the film

Bhagavad Geetha as part of the serious art that shook the world for BBC.

He has acted in very famous film directed by Shyam Bengal, Basu

Chatterjee and Nagaraj as well as Satyajit Ray and Mrunal Sen. His

film script for Bhumika one the National Award and „Goduli‟ Filmfare

Award. The out standing actor in Kannada film industry, Shankarnag

who was introduced by him in „Ondanandu Kaladalli‟ won the Best

Actor Award at the International Film Festival, New Delhi. His film

„Utsav‟ in Hindi and „Kanooru Heggadathi‟ in Kannada are very

popular. His first film Samskara for which he wrote the script and played

the lead role went on to win the President Gold Medal for the best

feature film of the year 1971.His next film „Vamsha Vruksha‟ which he

wrote, directed and acted received the National Award in direction. His

other film „Kaadu‟ won the President Silver Medal and Awards for

individual performance. The International Theatre Institute of UNESCO,

Paris has nominated him as World Theatre Ambassador. His another

play won Sangeeta Natak Academy Award. His play „Nagamandala‟

was premiered in United States of America in the Year 1993.His play

„Bali‟ was premiered in UK. His other plays are Yagathi, Tuglak,

Talanda, The Dreams, Tippu Sultan commissioned by the BBC

Radio,1997. There was an Award for work in traditional theatre.He

served as Director, Film and Television Institute of India,Pune and

Director of Nehru Centre as well as the Minister of Culture, High

Commission of India, London. He was at the University of Chicago as

Visiting Professor and a Full Bright play right-in-residence. He was

Chairman of Sangeeta Natak Academy and formerly Indian Co-

25

chairman for the Joint Media Committee of the Indo-US sub-committee

on education and culture.

(2.4) The petitioner no.4 is a natural poet and spontaneous poet of

native wisdom; the folk art. The petitioner is a recipient of Jnanapeetha

Award(2010),Devraj Urs Award (2007), Pampa Prashathi(2004),Kavi

Sanman (2004).He was decorated with Padmashree in the year 2001.He

is a well known Kannada poet and play writer. He is a recipient of

Sangeeta Natak Academy Award(1983) and Central Sahitya Academy

Award in 1991.He is a former Member of Legislative Council, founder

Vice Chancellor of Kannada University. He was the Chairman of

National School of Drama Society, New Delhi and Karnataka Nataka

Academy,Bangalore. His well known play „Joe Kumaraswamy‟ is

awarded Kanakadevi Chottopadaya Award as the best play in India in

the year 1975.

(3) The petitioners are aggrieved by the wrongful refusal to implement

and enforce the fundamental right to Free and Compulsory Education

guaranteed to every child in the age group of 6 to 14 years. Even though

the right of Education to free and compulsory Education Act,2009

(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) has been enacted, the respondents

have not even framed the necessary rules as contemplated under section

38 of the said Act. On the contrary, the respondents are indulging in acts

omissions militating against the mandate of the Constitution and the said

Act. They are not only honouring the right of children and not

implementing the Act, but are also going a step further even to deny the

existing facilities to impart education to the children of Karnataka. The

Respondents are making efforts to deny education to the neediest

children of the State in remote and inaccessible areas on the pretext of

26

low enrolment of children in the schools. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners have presented this writ petition on behalf of lakhs of

children so affected and millions of families whose children are denied

education by closure of the neighbourhood schools on the pretext of low

enrolment.