"Judgment Analysis: Bihar's Educational Equity Drive"

 

Introduction

This judgment by the High Court of Patna addresses a critical issue concerning the accessibility of higher education for marginalized communities in Bihar. The case, titled Ranjeet Pandit vs. The State of Bihar & Others (CWJC No.815 of 2020), brings forth a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the enforcement of a policy aimed at promoting higher education for students from Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and female categories.

Background and Facts

The petitioner, Ranjeet Pandit, filed the PIL to ensure the implementation of the Government of Bihar's resolution dated 24.07.2015. This resolution explicitly mandated that all fees for students from SC, ST, and female categories should be waived up to the Postgraduate level in General syllabi across universities and affiliated colleges in Bihar. The policy was introduced to enhance educational enrollment rates for these groups, who have been historically underrepresented in higher education.

According to the resolution, the Government of Bihar would reimburse the financial loss suffered by universities due to this waiver in the subsequent financial year. The petitioner cited instances where several universities continued to charge fees from the exempted categories despite the clear directive of the State Government.

Government Resolution and its Purpose

The resolution, issued by the Education Department of Bihar, was founded on the understanding that Bihar's enrollment rate in higher education institutions was significantly lower than in other states. Particularly, the enrollment of women and SC/ST students remained disproportionately low. As a welfare measure, the government aimed to bridge this educational gap by eliminating financial barriers for the disadvantaged groups.

The process for reimbursement was to be determined separately by the Department, but the execution of the policy faced significant delays and inconsistencies across institutions.

Legal Questions Raised

1.     What is the duty of the State to ensure access to education for marginalized communities, and what are the contours of such a policy?

2.     What is the nature of the obligation upon the State and universities to ensure the timely implementation of such beneficial schemes, particularly the waiver of fees for SC/ST and female students?

Court’s Observations

The Court underscored the constitutional right to education under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of education as a fundamental right essential for the upliftment of economically and socially marginalized groups.

Key judgments referenced include:

·        Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of M.P. (2013) 15 SCC 677 - Emphasizing the state's duty under Article 46 to promote the educational interests of weaker sections.

·        Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666 - Declaring education as an essential part of the right to life and dignity.

·        Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645 - Limiting free education to individuals up to 14 years of age, while emphasizing the State's duty to provide educational facilities as per economic capacity.

Analysis of State Policy

The judgment recognized the power of the State Government to implement welfare policies aimed at educational equity. The Court noted that failure to comply with the 2015 resolution by certain universities and colleges amounted to an affront to state policy. The universities’ negligence in submitting loss reports to the government further exacerbated the issue.

Court’s Directions

The Court issued specific directions:

1.     Immediate refund of fees collected from SC/ST and female students in violation of the resolution.

2.     Completion of the refund process within one month.

3.     Prohibition on any educational institution charging fees contrary to the 2015 resolution.

4.     Ensuring widespread publicity of the policy to make students aware of their rights.

5.     Non-compliance to be treated as contempt of court and may result in de-recognition of the institution.

Conclusion

The judgment represents a critical step in enforcing educational equity for marginalized groups in Bihar. By holding institutions accountable for violating the policy and directing immediate remedial measures, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of ensuring access to education for all.

The judgment also highlights the importance of constant monitoring and robust administrative mechanisms to ensure that welfare policies are effectively implemented. As Bihar moves forward, the lessons from this case will be instrumental in shaping a more inclusive educational framework.

Read the full judgement Below;

MTUjODE1IzIwMjAjMSNO-lbId4gsleiw=