Summary
The Court issued nationwide directions to secure adequate qualified special educators for children with disabilities in general and special schools. It required notification of appropriate pupil–teacher norms, creation of permanent posts, and regular recruitment within the prescribed deadline, with interim arrangements to address shortages. State Commissioners were directed to monitor compliance. The petitions remained pending, and the Court expressly left the represented teachers’ working conditions undecided.
Issues
- What pupil–teacher standards and recruitment measures were needed to provide meaningful inclusive education to children with disabilities.
- How shortages of qualified special educators and compliance with the directions should be addressed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(n) and 13, Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992Special educators were rehabilitation professionals required to possess recognised qualifications and Council registration. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 52, 53)
- Sections 2(ee), 3, 19 and 25, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009Children with disabilities shared the right to elementary education; general staffing norms did not adequately specify their distinct requirements. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 50, 54)
- Sections 16 and 17, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Inclusive education required appropriate support, trained teachers and effective pupil–teacher ratios. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- Sections 80 and 81, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016State Commissioners were to inquire into compliance and recommend corrective measures, with authorities reporting action within three months of receipt, subject to the statutory provision for reasoned non-acceptance. (¶¶ 41, 59)
Held
- Appropriate staffing for children with disabilities required standards distinct from general pupil–teacher ratios. Pending notification of comprehensive norms, applicable disability laws and schemes supplied the necessary framework; schools could provide more teachers than the minimum benchmark. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 50, 54)
- Special educators needed recognised qualifications and registration with the Rehabilitation Council. NCTE and the Council were to collaborate to increase the available workforce while maintaining statutory training and recognition standards. (¶¶ 14, 15, 40, 43, 52, 56, 57)
- As an interim arrangement the Court adopted the ratios identified in the Delhi Commissioner’s decision: eight pupils per teacher for cerebral palsy, five for intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder and specific learning disabilities, and two for deaf-blindness and the specified combinations of disabilities. The Central Government was directed to notify the requisite norms. (¶¶ 51, 52, 57)
- Authorities were to create commensurate permanent posts and complete regular appointments within six months of the order or before academic year 2022–2023, whichever was earlier. Pending sufficient availability, qualified itinerant teachers could serve school clusters under Samagra Shiksha; other school staff needed compulsory training and sensitisation. (¶¶ 53, 57)
- The directions applied to all States and Union Territories. State Commissioners were to initiate suo motu compliance inquiries and submit reports by the end of February 2022. The Court retained the proceedings for further review, without deciding the special teachers’ working conditions or finally determining their individual reliefs. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64)
Result
Nationwide directions issued for staffing norms, permanent posts, regular recruitment and monitoring. Matters retained for consideration of State Commissioners’ reports in the first week of March 2022; notices issued to the concerned Union Secretaries. Teachers’ working conditions not decided.