INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Delhi government to grant school admission to children of Rohingya refugees who had come from Myanmar to India.
The Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the PIL and said that the court will not get involved in this matter. The bench further suggested the Union Ministry of Home Affairs could instead be approached on this issue.
BACKGROUND
A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Social Jurist, an NGO, claimed that denying school admissions to refugee children infringes on their fundamental right to education, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, rejected the PIL, stating the court would not step in on this matter. The bench advised that the issue should instead be taken up with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The justices noted that, since the children in question are not Indian citizens, the issue carries international implications.
The petitioner argued that the Delhi government and the MCD were denying school admissions to Rohingya children from Myanmar due to their lack of Aadhaar cards, despite all of them residing in the Khajoori Chowk area.
The court said that the in no country in the world will the Court decide who is to be given citizenship.
The court also stated that this was a policy decision that had to be taken by the Government, not by the Court.
KEY ASPECTS
- PIL ON RIGHTS TO EDUCATION FOR REFUGEE CHILDREN:
The PIL filed by Social Jurist, an NGO arguing claimed that denying school admissions to refugee children infringes on their fundamental right to education, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009.
- COURT’S REJECTION:
The bench, led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, rejected the PIL, stating the court would not step in on this matter. The bench advised that the issue should instead be taken up with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
- GOVERNMENT’S DUTY NOT THE COURT’S:
The court stated that this was a policy decision that had to be taken by the Government, not by the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court examined the case and stated that it is duty of Government to decide on this matter, not the Court’s. The bench advised that the issue should instead be taken up with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.
