Supreme Court Directs Pupil-Teacher Ratio for Special Needs Education in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 (28 October 2021)

Case Background

The case originated from writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by teachers holding B.Ed. (Special) and D.Ed. (Special) degrees/diplomas. These teachers, trained to educate children with special needs (CwSN), sought redressal for their employment on a contractual basis without any job security. They highlighted the need for regular appointments to maintain the required pupil-teacher ratio of 5:1 for CwSN. The petitioners contended that despite repeated appeals to the authorities, no action was taken to address their concerns, leading to the filing of the writ petitions.

The petitioners specifically pointed out that in Uttar Pradesh, 73,888 special teachers were needed to teach 369,443 CwSN, and a similar situation prevailed in Punjab. They argued that the state governments were obligated to ensure a proper pupil-teacher ratio by appointing trained teachers on a regular basis. The petitions sought directions from the Supreme Court to compel the respondents to create regular posts for special teachers and to ensure free and compulsory education for all CwSN.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions and schemes to address the issues raised in the petitions. These include:

• ✓ The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992: This Act provides for the constitution of the Rehabilitation Council of India, which regulates and monitors the training of rehabilitation professionals, including special teachers. Section 13 of the Act specifies that only those with recognized qualifications and registered with the Council can practice as rehabilitation professionals.

  “13. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in the Schedule to be enrolled.—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any qualification included in the Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on the Register.
  (2) No person, other than the rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the Register,—
  (a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;
  (b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India;
  (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional;
  (d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any Court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of any matter relating to the handicapped…”

• ✓ The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: This Act, later repealed by the 2016 Act, aimed to provide equal opportunities and protection of rights for persons with disabilities.
• ✓ The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999: This Act established a National Trust for the welfare of persons with specific disabilities, aiming to protect their rights and promote their development.
• ✓ The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This comprehensive legislation replaced the 1995 Act and aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It emphasizes inclusive education and mandates that educational institutions provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities.

  Section 16 of the Act states: “The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities…”

• ✓ The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: This Act guarantees free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age. It includes children with disabilities, ensuring their right to education in a neighborhood school.

  Section 19 of the Act states: “(1) No school shall be established, or recognised, under section 18, unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule.”

• ✓ The Integrated Education for Disabled Children Scheme, 1992: This scheme aimed to provide educational opportunities for CwSN in general schools and facilitate their retention in the school system. It also specified a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:8 for special education teachers.
• ✓ The Scheme for Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS): This scheme, formulated during the same period as the 1992 scheme, expanded on the 1992 scheme and aimed to provide opportunities for students with disabilities to complete secondary education in an inclusive environment. It specified a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:5 for special educators.
• ✓ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan 2004: Scheme for universal elementary education to address the specific concern of CwSN and to encourage them to take admission in primary schools.
• ✓ Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme (DDRS): This scheme provides for model projects for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, including special schools and early intervention programs. It specifies different pupil-teacher ratios based on the severity of the disability.
• ✓ Samagra Shiksha – an Integrated Scheme for School Education: This scheme aims to provide inclusive and quality education to all children, including CwSN, from pre-school to senior secondary level.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the State governments were not fulfilling their obligations to provide free and compulsory education to CwSN by failing to appoint an adequate number of special teachers on a regular basis. They contended that the existing contractual appointments were insufficient and did not ensure the required pupil-teacher ratio. The petitioners also emphasized that the State was obligated to conduct surveys to identify CwSN and to create special schools or provide special teachers in general schools.

The State of Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, submitted that it was committed to imparting education to children with special needs and had already commenced the process of engaging 12,000 teachers, some of whom would be special teachers. The State also highlighted the establishment of 16 special schools and the ongoing construction of 17 more. The State further argued that they were taking steps to ensure compliance with the relevant laws and schemes.

The State of Punjab stated that it had not appointed any special teachers in its schools and sought time to create and appoint required teachers.

The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) emphasized that only qualified and registered rehabilitation professionals should be allowed to practice as special teachers, in accordance with Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.

The arguments also touched on the interpretation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to determine the extent of the obligation of the state and the schools.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. What is the extent of the obligation of recognized schools imparting primary and secondary level education to children below the age of 14 years, and CwSN in particular, in light of the central enactments and schemes governing the pupil-teacher ratio?
2. What are the standards to be observed by the schools imparting primary and secondary level education, as governed by municipal regulations, in light of the central enactments and schemes governing the pupil-teacher ratio?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the parties and how each authority was viewed to come to its reasoning.

The Supreme Court also analyzed how each authority was viewed to come to its reasoning.

• The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992: The Court emphasized the importance of Section 13, stating that only registered professionals can practice as special teachers.
• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: The Court noted that while the Act provides for free and compulsory education to all children, it lacks specific norms for CwSN.
• The Integrated Education for Disabled Children Scheme, 1992: The Court recognized the pupil-teacher ratio of 1:8 specified in this scheme.
• The Scheme for Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS): The Court acknowledged the pupil-teacher ratio of 1:5 for special educators in this scheme.
• Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme (DDRS): The Court referred to the different pupil-teacher ratios specified in this scheme based on the severity of disabilities.
• Samagra Shiksha – an Integrated Scheme for School Education: The Court recognized this scheme as a way to provide inclusive and quality education to all children, including CwSN, from pre-school to senior secondary level.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that children with special needs receive quality education in an inclusive environment. The Court emphasized the following points:

• ✓ Rights of CwSN: The Court underscored the fundamental right of CwSN to receive free and compulsory education, as enshrined in the Constitution and various legislations.
• ✓ Pupil-Teacher Ratio: The Court stressed the importance of maintaining an appropriate pupil-teacher ratio to ensure that CwSN receive adequate individual attention and support.
• ✓ Qualified Special Teachers: The Court highlighted the necessity of employing qualified and registered special teachers to cater to the unique educational needs of CwSN.
• ✓ Harmonization of Laws and Schemes: The Court aimed to harmonize the various legal provisions and schemes to create a cohesive framework for the education of CwSN.
• ✓ Inclusive Education: The Court reiterated the importance of inclusive education, where CwSN are integrated into general schools with appropriate support and accommodations.

The Court’s reasoning was also based on the principle that special schools and general schools admitting CwSN must have adequate resources and trained staff to ensure that every child with special needs receives quality education.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Pupil-Teacher Ratio: Schools must maintain a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1 for children with cerebral palsy, visual impairment, and hearing impairment; 5:1 for children with intellectual disability, ASD, and specific learning disabilities; and 2:1 for deaf-blind children and those with multiple disabilities.
• ✓ Qualified Teachers: Only rehabilitation professionals registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) can teach CwSN.
• ✓ Amended Norms: The Central Government is directed to amend the Schedule of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to include specific norms for special education.
• ✓ Itinerant Teachers: Until sufficient special teachers are available, itinerant teachers can be used in a cluster of schools.
• ✓ Training: General school teachers must be trained to handle CwSN.
• ✓ State Commissioner Oversight: State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities are directed to oversee compliance and submit reports to the Supreme Court.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment is expected to significantly improve the quality of education for CwSN by ensuring that they receive adequate attention and support from trained professionals. It also sets a precedent for the implementation of inclusive education policies across the country.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Central Government must notify the pupil-teacher ratio for special schools and for special teachers in general schools, and until then, adopt the ratio recommended by the State Commissioner, NCT of Delhi.
2. Commensurate permanent posts for special teachers must be created.
3. The appointment process for these posts must be completed within six months or before the commencement of the academic year 2022-2023, whichever is earlier.
4. Training institutions must increase the number of special teachers while adhering to the norms and standards.
5. Until sufficient special teachers are available, itinerant teachers can be used in a cluster of schools.
6. General school teachers must be trained to handle CwSN.
7. Authorities may explore merging unviable special schools with viable ones.
8. State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities must initiate suo motu inquiries and submit compliance reports to the Supreme Court by the end of February 2022.
9. The Secretary of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and Secretary, Ministry of Education, must take corrective steps and issue directions for reporting compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the pupil-teacher ratio for children with special needs (CwSN) must be as specified in the enactments governing the rights of persons with disabilities or the schemes propounded in that regard, and that only qualified and registered rehabilitation professionals can teach CwSN. This judgment clarifies that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, applies to all schools, including those catering to CwSN, the norms and standards specified in its Schedule do not adequately address the unique needs of CwSN, necessitating the adoption of different pupil-teacher ratios and the use of trained special educators.

The judgment also emphasizes the need for harmonization of various central enactments and schemes to ensure that CwSN receive quality education. It directs the Central Government to amend the Schedule of the 2009 Act to include specific norms for CwSN, and until then, adopts the pupil-teacher ratio recommended by the State Commissioner, NCT of Delhi. This represents a significant step towards ensuring that CwSN receive the special attention and resources they need.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a landmark decision that aims to ensure that children with special needs receive quality education through appropriate pupil-teacher ratios and the appointment of qualified special educators. The judgment directs the Central Government to amend the Schedule of the 2009 Act and mandates that all schools, both general and special, comply with the specified pupil-teacher ratios and employ registered professionals. This ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on the education of CwSN, promoting inclusive education and ensuring that their rights are protected. The State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities are tasked with overseeing compliance, and the Supreme Court will review the progress in the coming months.