Interview with Anil B. Suraj

1. Education sector is a not for profit sector. RTE Act 2009 includes a mandate that 25% of the seats at a private unaided school have to be reserved for economically weaker section students. The government rate of reimbursement is not enough to cover education of such students. These schools may cross-subsidize by overcharging the remaining 75% students. Will such an act by schools not cause a problem wrt the law?

A not for profit organization does not mean an organization that makes no profits. It only means that the members of the organization do not get a share in the profits. There is also a clause that states that the organization has to re-plough 85% of the profits into the same activity.

Schools can actually bear the burden of maintaining the 25% reservation for underprivileged children in their institutions. 90% of the schools are actually doing very well and cannot claim inability to bear the expenses associated with these children.

2. Does it not amount to discrimination at some level if providing for some students comes at the expense of others?

Parents are never told what the fees that they pay are being used for. It does not amount to discrimination if the schools move the burden of providing for the regulations of the RTE on to the shoulders of those parents who are financially capable of paying higher fees.

Not for profits must be encouraged but also regulated better. The regulation surrounding them is currently very lax. Because most of them would be tax exempted. The biggest monitoring agencies are the Tax agencies and they are absent in these cases because of policy. They must be required to submit periodic statements, financial planning, and details about funding. By this their probity and accountability must come out more clearly.

3. Some schools are provided with land by the local community at no profit no loss basis and not on market price. Will such schools be included into aided schools or unaided schools? And if they are aided are they supposed to provide free education to more than 25% of the students?

If any aid is provided to hospitals in any form then the courts have held that as they get a benefit in the form of land, the hospitals have some responsibility towards the state and hence they must have some benefits flowing to the public. In education sector there is a Grant in Aid scheme. The state government notifies selected schools as Aided based upon annual grants to them. Based upon this grant in aid the state may demand certain number of seats to provide free education. By getting the land free, the school doesnt become aided as they are separately granted the status based upon annual grant. In case of hospitals the benefit from getting land has to be passed to the general public in form free treatments etc. It is however not clear if the same applies to educational institutions.

4. How can the courts ensure the Implementation of RTE?There were a number of hiccups associated with the implementation of the RTE. Some schools refused to follow the provisions of the RTE, while some others claimed that they were minority institutions and hence they did not fall under the purview of the Act.

Talking from the viewpoint of Indian legal system and given that it is a socio economic domain of having to implement the law, the fact that the implementation of the RTE has begun is a good thing.

Any law that must be implemented on such a large scale is bound to have teething issues. In the context of the RTE what we must see is that if even 50% of the Act is implemented it is a great success.

Courts across the country are taking this up on priority in order to ensure that it is taken up immediately. And currently the most important matter is that the erring schools must be taken to task. In case any school is contesting the provisions of the RTE, it must still admit students while the case is going on at court, this is to ensure that no child loses a year due to the legal battle.

5. But even after 5 years of RTE Act, we still huge numbers of infrastructure and quality of education issues. Most of the targets have only been achieved on paper, but the ground reality is that we still have not achieved even the minimum level of quality of education. What the courts do to ensure that at least minimum quality is achieved?

While the lack of infrastructure is indeed an issue, what needs to be kept in mind is that the content and quality of education has not been made a priority at present. What has been given importance is simply putting a system in place wherein children between six and fourteen years of age are given a right to be in school. The initial aim is to ensure enrollment and then focus on quality.

At this stage it is all about Government needs to economically grow before we can think of achieving minimum standards. If minimum standards are put as a law, every government schools will be challenged. The courts as of now are focusing upon the law which states that every child from age of six to fourteen must be provided free education. If the courts decide to enforce quality as well right at the start, even the little progress that has currently been made is unlikely to have been made. At present it is better to look at the administrative success and progress that has been made.

In conclusion, it is much too early to judge the efficacy of the RTE. The RTE must not be compared to the RTI. This is due to the deeply social, political and cultural connect that the RTE has.