CHANDIGARH: January 14, 2013:A special lecture on “˜The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education: Trials and Tribulation in its Realization”  was delivered by
Professor Virendra Kumar [formerly Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy,
and Chairman, Department Of Laws, Panjab University] under the aegis of ICSSR
North-Western Regional Centre, P.U. Chandigarh, on January 12, 2013.

Professor Surinder Kler Shukla, Honorary Director, ICSSR North-Western Regional Centre,
Panjab University, introduced the  Chief Guest ,the Guest of Honour, and the  Speaker to
the  audience     

Professor Arun Kumar Grover, Vice-Chancellor, Panjab University, welcomed  Hon’ble Mr.
Justice S.S. Nijjar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble  Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar,
Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir along with other High Court Judges who came to  attend
the lecture on the invitation of ICSSR and the members of the teaching fraternity of
Panjab University.   He admired the initiative taken by ICSSR for inviting Professor
Virendra Kumar to deliver a lecture on a subject which is of current importance. He
correlated the importance of such in the lecture with the vision of Swami Vivekanand ji
whose birthday is being celebrated as National Youth Day.

The Lecture was chaired by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar, Judge, Supreme Court of
India along with Mr.Justice M.M. Kumar, Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir High Court as
Guest of Honour.     

Professor Kumar critically examined the constitutional perspective of the right to free
and compulsory education as legislatively expounded under the Act of 2009 in the light
of the recent Three-Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided
Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012)].  He dealt at length with the
majority opinion of S. H. Kapadia, C.J., and Swatanter Kumar, J. on the one side, and
the minority opinion of K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J., on the other.     

In his critical exposition, Professor Kumar raised three issues arising from the two
opinions:

(I) Why there is divided opinion of the Supreme Court on the issue of constitutionality
of Section 12(1)(c) and Section 18(3) of the Act of 2009 if proponents of the two
opinions seemingly started their objective determination on the same fundamental
principle as propounded in Article 21-A of the Constitution under which the Act of 2009
had been enacted?     

(II)  Whether there is any constitutional legitimacy for causing differentiation between
the recognized un-aided minority and the recognized un-aided non-minority educational
institutions for the purpose of achieving the objective of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act
of 2009 enacted under Article 21-A of the Constitution?     

(III)  Whether it is constitutionally commended to exclude the recognized un-aided
private minority educational institution from the purview of Section 12(1) (c) of the Act
of 2009 merely on the ground that such an institution had sought only paper recognition
without asking or taking any kind of  assistance from the State to cover whole or part
of its expenses?     

He concluded on these three counts one by one: Firstly, In his opinion, convergence of
diverging opinions, especially in the matter of determining constitutional validity of a
legislative enactment, is a constitutional imperative under Article 141 of the
Constitution for strengthening the rule of law by declaring “the law” and it is
constitutionally possible to have a unified opinion making the minority opinion converge
into that of majority on reasoned and rationale basis.     

Secondly, the right of unaided minority schools imparting general or secular education
as envisaged under the Act of 2009 is required to be regulated under Article 19(1)(g)
read with its Clause (6), and not under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which
provides protection only for conserving culture, language and script of minorities and
not to their secular or commercial education activities.     

Thirdly, The distinction between aided and un-aided educational institutions (both
minority and non-minority) is required to be renounced by according primacy to the
factor of State-recognition over that of State-aid or State-grants for the creation of
inclusive social order  by reserving some space for children belonging to weaker section
and disadvantaged group of society and that too with a certain degree of compensation.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar in his presidential remarks  admired the efforts of the
ICSSR in organizing Lectures  by such eminent persons like Professor Virendra Kumar  who
always bring in fresh perspective to our day-to-day  problems.     

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar, Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir, also admired the
analysis and depth with which Professor Kumar has dealt with the issue and wished that
his example is emulated by others in the University.     

Dr. P.K. Saini, Deputy Director, ICSSR N.W. Regional Centre, P.U. proposed a Vote of
Thanks.

The Lectures was well attended by  legal luminaries, teachers as well as students from
different disciplines.
Press Release No-16