Right to Education is a multidimensional right says Madras HC

Written by admin

Updated on:

A Public Interest Litigation was filled by a practicing advocate seeking writ of mandamus to direct the installation of CCTV cameras and GPS in all school buses so that the movement of the school buses can be properly regulated and monitored by parents through an official website. The petition of the petitioner was supported with two incidents of sexual harassment of minor students published in Times Of India and Mirror Now Digital. In the prayer it was also argued that the petitioner sent a representation to Director Of School Education, Chennai but the same was remain unanswered.The respondents argued that the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles ( Regulation and Control of School Buses) Special Rules 2012 does not impose any obligation for such installation.

However the petitioner argued that according to the CBSE 2017 guidelines relating to safety of school children in school buses , a circular came out where under clause 2(g) it was stated that every school bus should be quipped with CCTV and GPS systems, also the owner of the bus should be responsible for the working of such CCTVs and GPS.

The court observed that there is no rule or obligation either from the transport or education department obligating school buses to be installed with CCTV and GPS system. But under the CBSE guidelines the same had to be installed in affiliated schools. Further the court observed that the State Government has to consider issuing necessary guidelines in the matter of installation of CCTV and GPS in school buses. While explaining the ambit of right to education the court observed that right to education means right to health and hygiene. drinking water,fire safety, safety and precautions in the transportation systems of school.

But when a writ of mandamus is sought it has to be proved that a non discretionary legal duty has been imposed upon the authority against whom the relief is sought also the person asking for the writ of mandamus has to prove that he has the legal right to be enforced against that authority, however in the present case the petitioner has failed to prove any rules and regulations for the issuance of mandamus.


Leave a Comment