In the matter of the school slap, the SC asks the Uttar Pradesh government for child support procedures

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai has suggested ways to support a child who was slapped by classmates after their teacher made offensive remarks at a Muzaffarnagar school. The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to propose these ideas within a month.

The state government was instructed to communicate with TISS officials and submit an affidavit detailing the state’s plans to disclose the thorough ground report created by the institution by January 17 by a bench of justices AS Oka and Sandeep Mehta.

The youngster had emotional stress after the August event of this year, and the state government was unable to give counseling. The court then became engaged with the institution.

“We have gone through the very exhaustive report prepared by TISS,” the bench said. We provide the state instructions to submit a report outlining how it plans to carry out the recommendations. A hearing on the subject has been scheduled for mid-January.

The orders were made at the hearing of a public interest lawsuit (PIL) brought by Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson, who brought attention to the occurrence and requested guidelines for taking appropriate punishment against the negligent teacher and preventing such events from happening in the future.

The Additional Advocate General (AAG) of the Uttar Pradesh government, Garima Prasad, brought the TISS report before the court. She drew attention to a report that expressed concern that the child might be excluded because of “socioeconomic differences” given that he attends Sharden Public School, one of Muzaffarnagar’s top schools and located approximately 28 kilometers from the child’s village. According to the AAG, the state has compiled a list of six public and five private schools that are conveniently near his domicile.

“One important thing is the child has settled in the school and is happy there,” the bench said. The bench said, “We have to be very careful,” adding that they did not support switching schools in the middle of the term. You may also tell the child’s father this. It wouldn’t be appropriate to bother him just now. It may be for the next school year.

The youngster feels at ease at the new school, according to attorney Shadan Farasat, who both represented the petitioner and submitted an application on the victim’s father’s behalf. He said, “He has just settled down in the new school,” in response to the court’s request that the state pay the student’s tuition. Who is at fault for the months he missed while attending school? The greatest school in the area is this one.

“The child should be in the best possible school,” the bench said. TISS reports that the youngster is at ease as well. The education department has submitted all of the fees for this academic year at the present school, according to the state.

The accused teacher Tripta Tyagi was captured on camera instructing students to hit their classmates “hard” and declaring at one point, “Maine toh declare kar diya, jitne bhi Mohammedan bachche hain, ink wahan chale jao (I have declared – all these Muslim children, go to anyone’s area)” in the footage of the incident that happened at Neha Public School, an unrecognized private school in Muzaffarnagar.

When questioned about the event, the instructor defended her actions by stating that it was crucial to “control” the children. She was originally charged under Section 323 of the IPC (causing hurt) and Section 504 of the IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace). However, after the court made harsh criticism, the inspector general of the Meerut range took over the case’s investigation, and new sections were added under the Juvenile Justice Act and the IPC.

Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with offending the religious sentiments of any class of people, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, which deals with abusing a child, were the two recently introduced offenses under which the instructor was to be tried.

In September, the court noted that should the incident’s accusations prove to be true, it would “shock the conscience of the state government” since it would mean the state had failed to uphold the child’s basic right to an obligatory, high-quality education as guaranteed by the RTE Act. The court also wanted to know how the state was carrying out the RTE Act. The court said that it would address additional points made in the petition at a later time, after its consideration of the TISS report.