Infrastructure in government schools
A public interest litigation (PIL) addressed the issue of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’s failure to implement certain provisions. The Karnataka Right to Free and Compulsory Education Rules were also cited in the argument, which led to many children missing school. It was emphasised that even if the PIL was taken into consideration in 2013 and ten years have elapsed since then, the issue has only gotten worse. It had not effectively provided females in government schools throughout the State with access to clean water and sanitation facility.
Whether the government official provides adequate facilities in the government school
Conclusion of the Court
The State government was censured by the Kerala High Court for failing to sufficiently provide drinking water and lavatory facilities for girls in government schools throughout the State. The division bench, which was composed of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice MGS Kamal, made the criticism. The divisional bench decision scolded the government and described the situation as regrettable. It was mentioned that these are the minimal standards for public schools.
The Court further noted that 126 of the 2,000 schools in Kalaburgi did not have restrooms, and 22 did not have access to drinking water. In this context, the Division Bench questioned the government over the performance of the school inspectors. Are these inspectors of schools required to turn in their regular reports? Have you examined the reports’ submissions? The Court enquired as to what the superior officer was doing. It continued by noting that these responsibilities were only listed in writing and that the state-appointed authorities were not taking the necessary action. Do the inspectors never leave their offices? If they did not regularly visit the school, the superior officer was required by the Court to provide instructions.
Ultimately, the Court postponed the hearing until June 15 and instructed the State government to submit its answer detailing the steps it had taken in accordance with the amicus curiae’s recommendations.