PIL against Closure of government schools in Karnataka. Text.

1. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.P.No. /2011 (PIL)
BETWEEN:
(1) Rashtrakavi Dr.G.S. Shivarudrappa, M.A, Ph.D
S/o Guggeri Shantaveerappa,
Poet & Literary Critic,
Aged about 74 Years,
Professor & Director (Retired),
Centre of Kannada Studies,
Bangalore University,
Bangalore.
(2) Padmabhushan Prof. U.R. Ananthamurthy,
S/o.Udupi Rajagopala Acharya,
Aged about 79 years,
Retired Professor of Indian Literature in IGNOU,
Recipient of Jnanpeetha Award (1994),
Former Vice Chancellor,
Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Former Chairman,
National Book Trust, New Delhi, and Former President
Kendra Sahitya Academy, New Delhi
R/a. #498, 6th A Main, RMV 2nd Stage,
Bangalore.-560094.
(3) Padmabhushan Dr. Girish Karnad,
S/o Raghunath Karnad,
Age: 79 years,
Recipient of Jnanapeetha Award (1999)
R/a No 697,15th Cross,
JP Nagar,2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560078
(4) Padmabhushan Dr. Chandrashekar B. Kambar,
Age: 74 years,
Founder Vice Chancellor,
Kannada University, Hampi,
Recipient of Jnanapeetha Award (2010),

2. 2
Former Chairman, National School of Drama Society,
New Delhi and Karnataka Cricket Academy and
Former Member of Legislative Council,
R/a, “Siri Sampige”,No.44,1st Main,
4th Block,BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560085. …..Petitioners
And :
(1) The Commissioner for Public,
Instructions in Karnataka,
New Public Office,
K.R.Circle,Bangalore-560001
(2) State of Karnataka
Rep. Secretary,
Department of Primary and Secondary School Education,
M.S.Buildings,Bangalore-560001. ….Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The above named Petitioners state as follows:
1. In this Public Interest Litigation to enforce The Fundamental
Right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, the
petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to
implement the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009,while questioning the legality and validity of circular dated
24/09/2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILEENA:1:2011-12,
Annexure-A, Circular dated 29/09/2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)
SA.SHA.VILEENA:1:2011-12, Annexure-B resulting in closure of 3073
Government run Lower Primary Schools and 101 Government Higher
Primary Schools.

3. 3
2. All the four petitioners are very well known Kannada Literary
figures. The first of them has been crowned as the Rashtrakavi which is
a rare distinction. The other three petitioners have been conferred with
the highest Literary Award in the country namely, Jnanapeetha Award.
The last three petitioners are also conferred with the Padmabhushan
Award by the President of India. The petitioners seek leave of this
Hon‟ble Court to present a more detailed credentials of all the four
petitioners at the time of hearing.
3. The petitioners have been waging a relentless battle to provide
Right to Education in mother tongue to all the children of Karnataka. In
early 1980s Karnataka witnessed an epoke making movement popularly
known as `Gokak Movement‟. The petitioners were instrumental in
organising and leading the said movement in order to provide universal
education to all children in Kannada medium. This movement lead to
framing of very healthy education policy promoting mother tongue as
the medium of instructions in the neighbourhood schools. The
petitioners have preferred this writ petition as a public interest litigation
on behalf of millions of children who are going to be deprived their
fundamental Right to Education in neighbourhood schools. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the respondents‟ failure to enforce the
fundamental Right to Education while allowing mushrooming of English
medium schools in the private sector by directing closure of thousands of
Government Kannada Primary and Secondary Schools in the State.
Facts of the Case:
4. Education is the bedrock for an egalitarian Society. It is the
foundation stone on which democracy succeeds. Therefore, it is very

4. 4
important that primary education is provided to every children and that
education shall be of one standard, one syllabus and one value. Dr.
Rammanohar Lohia, a great a political ideologue and a socialist leader
once said,
“All primary schools in socialist India shall be run by
Municipalities and District boards and all fancy schools shall
be closed down… That nation which gives rise to such
wide gulfs in education is fated to break up; such education
must further deepen and split the crevices within the nation.
All the people must be pulled up by however slow degrees; all
school going children must go to common schools.”
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen said “To say that India does not have
money for education (and health care) is absolute, utter unmitigated
nonsense”.
Mahatma Gandhi said :
“I will give you a talisman, Whenever you are in doubt, or
when the self becomes too much with you, apply the
following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the
weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself,
if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to
him… Will it restore him to a control over, his own life
and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj
(freedom) for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
Then you will find your doubts and our self melt away”

5. 5
5. State sponsored free and compulsory education was one of the
major demands even during the freedom struggle. Mahatma Jyotiba
Phule had demanded such education in the 19th century itself while
arguing and providing evidence before the Education Commission,
popularly known as William Hunter Commission, 1882. He and
Dadabhai Navroji demanded state sponsored free and compulsory
education for all children. During the later stage of freedom struggle, the
demand for the Right to Education gained momentum across the nation.
Education which was the central subject in the beginning of the
Constitution was transferred to the provinces so as to ensure
decentralisation after the failure of diarchy. Particularly after realising
the importance of education and having seen educational qualification as
requirement for voting and contesting elections under the Government of
India Act,1935 several important developments took place demanding
free and compulsory education. Education and freedom movement
helped to move towards eradication of backwardness. It is important to
note that the demand for free and compulsory education was the product
of the freedom struggle.
6. During the framing of the Constitution, free and compulsory
education was upper most in the minds of the founding fathers .Several
provisions came to be incorporated guaranteeing right to education, the
importance of right to education was such that the constitution put a time
limit to achieving this target within a period of 10 years after the
Constitution came into force. Under Art 41, the State was required to
make effective provisions for securing the right to education, under Art
45 within a period of 10 years, the Government was required to provide
free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.

6. 6
Simultaneously, it was mandate under Art.24 of the Constitution,
prohibiting employment of the children up to the age of 14 years in any
factory or mine or in any other hazardous employment.
7. The founding fathers deliberated a great deal to incorporate
necessary provisions in the Constitution guaranteeing right to education
to every child. While prohibiting child labour they wanted to ensure that
the child shall be kept in an educational institution till the age of 14
years. It is for this reason that right to education is not restricted to
primary education. While dealing with the amendment proposed to the
draft Article 36, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar had this to say:
“Sir, I accept the amendment proposed by my friend,
Mr.Maitra, which suggests the deletion of the words “every
citizen is entitled to free primary education and”. But I am
not prepared to accept the amendment of my friend,
Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad. He seems to think that the objective
of the rest of the clause in Art 36 is restricted to free
primary education. But that is not so. The clause as it stands
after the amendment is that every child shall be kept in an
educational institution under training until the child is of 14
years. If my hon’ble Friend, Mr.Naziruddin Ahmad had
referred to Article 18, which forms part of the fundamental
rights ,he would have noticed that a provision is made in
article 18 to forbid any child being employed below the age
of 14.Obviously,if the child is not to be employed below the
age of 14,the child must be kept occupied in some
educational institution. That is the object of article 36, and

7. 7
that is why I say the word “primary” is quite inappropriate
in that particular clause, and I therefore oppose his
amendment.” (Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume
7,Page.540, Para 2.)
8. In the year 1951, the Secondary School Commission was
constituted to prepare the text books and common syllabus for all
students. The report on the National Education Policy for all students.
The report on the National Education Policy (Kothari Commission 1966)
provided for common syllabus suggesting that public funded schools be
opened for all children irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion ,
condition of social status. Quality education should be made accessible
to all children – rich and poor. Tuition fee should not be charged for any
child. These recommendations of Kothari Commission were reiterated
by the Yashpal Committee in the year 1991.
Judicial Contribution
9. The Contribution of an Indian judiciary to promote right to
education is very important factor in shaping the right to education in
India. The Constitution had not initially enumerated right to education as
a fundamental right even then the Indian judiciary always considered the
right to education as an important right. This aspect was highlighted in
Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956.The Delhi High Court
declared right to education as a fundamental right in Anand Vardhan
Chandal V. Delhi University, AIR 1978 Del 308.The Supreme Court
treated right to education as a fundamental right in Mohini Jain V. State
of Karnataka,1992 (3) SCC 666, Unnikrishnan J.P V. State of Andhra
Pradesh,1993 (1) SCC 645 and T.M.A.Pai Foundation V. State of

8. 8
Karnataka,2002 (8) SCC 481.It is in the light of these pronouncements
that right to education is a fundamental right .The Parliament also
thought it fit to specifically incorporate right to education as a
fundamental right. Accordingly, the Parliament amended the
Constitution by inserting Art 21 A, by the Constitution (86 th
Amendment, 2002).It was declared that “….nothing provokes and
stimulates thought and expression in people more than education.
Impugned Action
10. In order to implement the said fundamental right, the Parliament
has enacted the right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 which has come into force with effect from 1.4.2010.In order to
implement the act and make right to education a meaningful
fundamental right, the government of India have taken all necessary
steps including providing resources for implementation of the provisions
of the Act. However, the respondents herein have totally ignored the
mandate of the constitution as also the provisions of the said act. The act
has not been implemented so far by the government of Karnataka. Even
the rules contemplated under Section 38 have not been framed. On the
contrary in total negation of the same, the respondent have now issued
the offending orders. By the OM (Annexure A) 590 Lower Primary
schools and 27 Higher Primary schools have been directed to be closed
down by shifting the students and the teachers to other schools. It is
further directed by this OM that every academic year steps should be
taken to close down all schools where enrolment is below 5 students and
steps in accordance with the OM be taken to transfer the student and the
teachers to other schools. Circular dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure B) is
another direction to initiate steps to close down 2483 Lower Primary

9. 9
schools and 74 Higher Primary schools. Wherever it is found that it is
found that the no. of students in a school is less than 10 proposals to
transfer such students to nearby schools are directed to be prepared and
submitted. It is further directed that from the next academic year the
student shall be admitted to only such schools to which the student had
been transferred during the current academic year. This process is
directed to be initiated in the month of November and completed before
December and all necessary steps to be taken by the end of 15th of
February to close down the schools and to transfer the students to other
schools. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioners have approached this
Honourable Court with this Public Interest Litigation.
11. The petitioners have not filed any other writ petition seeking
similar reliefs.
12. As the petitioners have no other alternative and efficacious
remedy, they have approached this Hon‟ble Court under Article 226 of
The Constitution of India on the following grounds.
GROUNDS
13. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India states as follows :
“21A. Right to Education – The state shall provide free
and compulsory education to all children of the age of
six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by
law, determine”.
In order to strengthen the social fabric of democracy and provide equal
opportunity to all and to achieve role of universal elementary education

10. 10
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has
been enacted so that the values of equality, social justice and democracy
and the creation of a just and humane society be achieved through
provision for inclusive elementary education to all. Under section 3 of
the Act, the fundamental Right to Education is guaranteed to every child
in neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.
Section 4 of the Act ensures that those children who are not in School
should be admitted in a class appropriate to his or her age. Section 6 of
the Act provides that the appropriate Government or Local Authority is
under a duty to establish a neighbourhood, if not already established.
Under Section 8 of the Act, the appropriate Government shall provide
free and compulsory elementary education to every child and ensure
availability of neighbourhood school as specified in Section 6 of the
Act.
14. In the light of the provisions of Article 21A read with the above
provisions of the Act, it is the duty of the respondents herein to
guarantee to every child the fundamental right to free and compulsory
education in a neighbourhood school till the age of 14 years. In that
view of the matter, it was of utmost importance that the respondents
frame the rules under section 38 of the Act and implement the provisions
of the Act in toto and open neighbourhood schools, where there are
none, without any delay. In the circumstances, failure to do so is a clear,
wilful and wrongful refusal to perform the duties cast on the respondents
and it is therefore just and necessary to issue a Writ of Mandamus to
implement Article 21A and the aforementioned Act after framing the
Rules in the interest of justice and equity.

11. 11
15. The actions of the respondents in directing the closure of 590
Lower Primary schools and 27 Higher Primary schools under Annexure
A and to further initiate steps to close down 2483 Lower Primary
schools and 74 higher primary schools as per Annexure B are wholly
without authority of law and unsustainable for the following reasons :
(a) The said action is arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical and is violative of rights of children
of Karnataka guaranteed under Article 21A read
with Article 14, 15 and 21.
(b) The fundamental Right to Education is guaranteed
to every child. It is wholly impermissible to
compel the child to travel a distance of 6 Kms(six
kilometres) and above in order to access the
school. While it is the duty of the respondents to
open neighbourhood schools, it is not open to
them to deny even the existing opportunities by
closing neighbourhood School, on the pretext of
lower enrolment of students. Since the right is
guaranteed to every child even if there are only
handful of students in a school it is the duty of the
respondents not to close down the schools. The
reasons given under Annexure A and B for closure
of Schools is irrelevant and is extraneous to the
concept of Right to Education guaranteed to every
child in neighbourhood School. The impugned
action of the respondents is therefore violative of

12. 12
rights guaranteed to the children under Article 14
and 15(1) and Article 21A of the Constitution of
India and hence unsustainable.
(c) Under the Act every child has the right to free and
compulsory education in a neighbourhood school
under Section 3 read with section 6, 8 and 9.
Further, in view of the mandate of Section 19 and
25 every such School should be provided with two
teachers. In that view of the matter, it is wholly
impermissible to close down the schools.
(d) The impugned order is said to have been issued in
the interest of quality education and to strengthen
the Schools in which the neighbourhood schools
are merged. This is wholly extraneous to the
power, functions and responsibilities cast on the
respondents under the aforesaid provisions. If the
number of students is small that will in no any way
bring down the standard of education. On the
contrary lower the number higher will be the
attention paid by the teacher to each and every
student. This will so as to personally ensure the
learning and welfare of the child. Teachers will be
in a position to give greater personal attention to
individually develop the personality of a child and
also give quality time to each child. Therefore,
dwindling of the number of students will in no

13. 13
way bring down the standard of education and
hence the said ground is an irrelevant ground.
Likewise strengthening the other School to which
the neighbourhood school is merged also cannot
be the reason to close down any neighbourhood
School. It is the duty of the respondents to
strengthen all the existing neighbourhood schools
and to ensure that they are maintained and
administered efficiently. Their only duty is to
open neighbourhood school where there are no
such schools in the neighbourhood and under no
circumstances can an existing neighbourhood
school could be closed down.
16. Under Article 243(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State
to endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be
necessary to enable them to function as institutions of the self
government. Such laws should provide for devolution of powers and
responsibilities upon the Panchayat with respect to preparation of plan
for economic development and social justice and implementation of the
schemes for economic development and social justice in relation to
matters listed in the XIth Schedule. Accordingly, under Entry 17
education including primary and secondary schools is entrusted to
Panchayat under the XIth Schedule. In obedience to the said
constitutional mandate the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 has made
elaborate provisions to entrust the entire matter of primary and
secondary education to the Panchayat. Under sub-section (1A) of
Section 58 it is the obligatory function of the Gram Panchayats to make

14. 14
reasonable provisions within every Panchayat area to ensure universal
enrolment of children in primary school. Under Schedule I of the said
Act at Entry XIII education – including primary and secondary schools,
is specifically enumerated as obligatory function of every Gram
Panchayat. It is the duty of the Panchayat to permit public aware ness
and ensure participation in primary and secondary education and further
ensure full enrolment and attendance in primary schools. Likewise
under Schedule II Entry XIV read with Section 145 casts a similar
burden on the Taluk Panchayat. Schedule III Entry XV read with
Section 184 have imposed a similar duty on Zilla Panchayat. This
obligatory function of the Panchayat is carried further by the mandate of
the Right to Education Act, 2009. Under section 9 thereof, every local
authority shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to
every child. It shall ensure availability of neighbourhood school and
further ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child
belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and
prevented from pursuing and completing elementary education on any
ground. It is also the duty of the Local Authority to maintain records of
children residing within its jurisdiction and to ensure and monitor
admission, attendance and completion of elementary education residing
within its jurisdiction. It is also its duty to provide infrastructure
including school building, teaching staff and learning materials besides
providing special training as required under section 4 of the Act and
also ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the
standards and norms specified in the Schedule. Even where there are
migrant families it should ensure the admission of their children. In that
view of the matter, since it is the fundamental duty of every Panchayat to
provide for a neighbourhood school, to maintain them and to ensure
attendance in such schools, the respondents have no manner of right or

15. 15
authority whatsoever to interfere with the establishment and
administration of such schools in the light of the aforesaid provisions.
Hence the impugned actions are wholly without authority of law.
17. Moreover under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, it is once
again the duty of the respondents to enforce compulsory primary
education. Under sections 11 and 12 they can command the Local
Authority to take necessary steps in that direction. Under Section 13,
Attendance Authorities are to be appointed and further to appoint as
many persons as are considered necessary to assist the Attendance
Authorities. It is the duty of the Local Authority and the Attendance
Authority to prepare as early as possible the list of children in a specified
area and it shall be the duty of the Attendance Authority to ensure the
attendance of the child in the manner provided for under the said
provision. Under section 37 of the Act, an Expert Body is required to be
constituted in the matter of making provisions for educational facilities.
Further under section 109 a State Education Council is required to be
constituted for the purpose of advising the Government on matters
pertaining to educational policies and programmes. Under section 110
there shall be a Standing Committee of such educational Advisory
Committee for each of the department including Department of Public
Instruction. Under section 111 a separate Advisory Committee for
primary and secondary education may also be constituted. Strangely no
such Advisory Committee or Advisory Body has advised the
respondents to close any school in the manner it is now sought to be
done as per Annexure A and B. As a matter of fact SABE has not even
held a single meeting much less has it framed any policy. In the
circumstances, the respondents have unilaterally embarked upon this
disastrous course thereby doing the greatest damage to the most

16. 16
vulnerable sections of the Society by denying neighbourhood schools.
The same is arbitrary and unsustainable besides being without authority
of law.
18. Prior to the Education Act, the establishment and administration
of school was governed by Grant-in-Aid Code and the said Code has
made elaborate provisions providing for starting new schools. Under
Rule 10 it was specifically provided that a new primary school shall
ordinarily be started by the Government. Under Rule 11 one of the
fundamental requirements to sanction opening of a private School was to
ensure that there is need for such an institution in the locality without
involving any unhealthy competition in the locality with the existing
institution of the same category in the neighbourhood. The main criteria
for starting an institution shall be the educational requirement of the
locality. This being the basic limitation for permitting any new private
school to be opened, the respondents have indiscriminately and in utter
violation of the above Rules allowed the mushrooming of the private
educational institutions in every locality. In violation of all canons of
law freely the education sector has been privatised and now in order to
help such private Schools the impugned action has been taken. As a
matter of fact even now the Respondents are encouraging opening of
new English medium private schools. On 24.9.2011, simultaneously
with the closing of the Kannada schools under Annexure A and B, the
Respondents have unveiled a new policy to open English medium
private schools. A copy of the circular issued in that behalf as produced
here with and marked as Annexure C.
19. The dwindling of number of students is only a ruse and a
camouflage to aid private educational institutions. In view of the fact

17. 17
that Right to Education is a fundamental right and in view of the fact that
this casts a fundamental duty on the respondents to provide for such
right it is not open for them to close down the existing Schools on any
ground whatsoever. On the contrary they should take steps to prevent
opening and running of private schools to strengthen the
neighbourhood schools. Hence, the impugned action is a fraud on
power and is malafide action taken by the respondents solely with the
object of commercialisation and privatisation of the primary education
and hence violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and
21A of the Constitution of India.
20. It is also necessary to mention here that under Rule 17 of the
Grant-in-Aid Code in all primary schools the medium of instructions
shall ordinarily be regional language or the mother tongue of the child.
English medium schools or English medium sections in the existing
primary schools may be opened only with the previous permission of the
Directorate. Contrary to this mandate of the Rule, schools which are
established to provide education in Kannada language are superistiuosly
allowed to use English as medium of instructions. From the inception
children are taught in English medium in wholesale violation of the said
Rule. Apart from the fact that the school which plays fraud will never
set a good example for the students studying in such school, the children
who are taught from the inception to practice deception and break the
law from childhood will never honour rule of law in future.
21. It is also necessary to mention here that where permission is
granted to open English medium schools under Rule 12, it can only be
for the benefit of students whose mother tongue is English; students
whose parents belong to All India Services, central services and are

18. 18
liable to be transferred from State to State; students belonging to
migratory group; students whose parents are employees of Banks, Firms
and other Business Concerns which have branches in more than one
State and the employees of which are liable to be transferred from State
to State; students whose mother tongue is minority language for which
there is no provision in the school in the locality. This requirement is
never adhered to or enforced. On the contrary schools which are
established to provide education in Kannada medium have been freely
allowed by the respondents to be imparting education in English medium
without any valid permission. Under Rule 12 such instruction in English
medium is imparted not for the purpose contemplated under Rule 12 but
to the students whose mother tongue is Kannada in wholesale violation
of Education Act and the aforestated provisions of Grant-in-Aid Code.
22. The Schools which are being closed down pursuant to the
impugned action of the respondents have been in existence for decades if
not centuries. Behind each such School there is great struggle and
contribution of the local citizens in establishing that School. It is
particularly in areas dominated by the SC, ST and BT the schools are
facing closure. It is these sections which are statutorily recognised as
„Disadvantageous Sections‟ which are required to be provided with
neighbourhood schools to ensure that every child from these
communities is guaranteed the Right to Education. Since all these
sections are also socially and educationally most backward the impugned
act of closure will seriously jeopardise the advancement of Scheduled
Castes , Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes and permanently
prevent them from joining the main stream and reach a level playing
field. This is opposed to the very constitutional ethos and would be
destructive of the very heart and soul of the constitutional goal to

19. 19
establish an egalitarian society. Hence, the impugned action is liable to
be declared as unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative.
23. In these circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in
closing down the Kannada Government Lower Primary Schools and
secondary schools is a fraud on the Constitution, freely indulged in by
the respondents solely with the object of commercialising and privatising
education and to divest the State of its power to establish, administer and
regulate such educational intuitions. Since this act is detrimental to the
State and public interest it is sure to advance commercialisation of
education and promote private educational institutions, the entire
exercise is malafide and is a fraud on power violating Articles 14 and 15
(1) of the Constitution of India.
Grounds in support of interim prayer
24. Every child has a fundamental right to free and compulsory
education. The impugned action of the respondents is an affront to the
Constitution and is a direct violation of the said fundamental right
guaranteed to every child in the State of Karnataka. Majority of the
schools, if not all, which are going to be subjected to the act of closure,
transfer of students and teachers under the impugned circulars for all
schools located in the tribal areas which are populated by the Scheduled
Tribes or the hamlets which are the exclusive habitats of scheduled
Castes. In the circumstances, driving a child at the tender age of 6 years
to travel a distance of 6 Kilometres and ore to attend a school every day
is nothing but an at to take the child out of the school which is prohibited
under the new dispensation brought above by making the Right to
Education a fundamental right. Thousands of children who are going to

20. 20
be affected will exclusively come from the lowest strata of the society
viz., the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others coming below
the poverty line. In this view of the matter, if the impugned circulars are
given effect to, it will jeopardise the right to education of these children
and produce generations of illiterate uneducated people coming from
these neglected margins of the sections of the society. The injury
inflicted on such a vast human sea by denying them education cannot be
compensated in terms of money. The institutions which are going to be
covered by the two impugned circulars are institutions which have been
in existence for several decades. The hasty action to close them will
result in an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. It is therefore just and necessary to protect the interest of this
vast human sea of thousands of children coming form the lowest strata
of the society from remote and inaccessible areas of Karnataka through
an interim order as prayed for, failing which, it will seriously jeopardise
the career of thousands of students and families in the State.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon‟ble
Court be pleased to:
(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents to implement the Right of children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009)
(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents to frame Rules for carrying out the provisions
of the aforesaid Act under Section 38 of the Act.

21. 21
(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
Official Memorandum dated 24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2 (2)
SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12 (Annexure A) and Circular dated
24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12
(Annexure B).
(4) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to take comprehensive measures to
strengthen the enrolment and attendance in the schools which are
covered under Annexures A and B, if necessary, by withdrawing the
permission granted to open private educational institutions which are
enrolling students from the villages and areas where the aforementioned
schools are located.
(6) Direct the respondents to restore and reopen all Government
Kannada Primary and Secondary Schools so far closed, merged or
shifted after the Right to education was declared as a fundamental right.
(7) Grant such other relief‟s as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit to in the
facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs in the
interest of justice and equity.
Interim prayer
Pending disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioners pray
that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to stay the Official Memorandum
dated 24.9.2011 bearing No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12
(Annexure A) and Circular dated 24.9.2011 bearing

22. 22
No.ADM2(2)SA.SHA.VILENA:1:2011-12 (Annexure B) and all further
proceedings pursuant thereto in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore,
Date: 3.12.2011 Advocates for Petitioners
Address for service: :
M/s Ravivarma Kumar Associates,
Advocates
44/1,Bharat Apartments,
Fairfield Layout,Race course Road,
Bangalore – 1.

23. 23
Locas Standi
(2.1) The first petitioner is a well-known literary critic and has been
decorated with the title of Rashtrakavi conferred by the Government of
Karnataka in the year 2007. He is a winner of Central Sahitya Academy
Award (National Award) and has been conferred honorary doctorates by
the University of Mysore, Kannada University, Kuvempu University and
Bangalore University.
(2.2) The petitioner No.2 is an internationally renowned prominent
writer of the Navya Movement in Kannada Literature. He is regarded as
one of the most important authors in India having studied English and
literature in Mysore and Barmingham where he had studied for Ph.D. He
has been hailed as a Gandhian Socialist. He is a former Vice Chancellor
of the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam, Chairman of National
Book Trust of India and President of the Central Sahitya Academy, New
Delhi. He was Professor in English literature in University of Mysore.
He was a guest facility in several universities in Europe and USA. He
was the Chairman of Film and Television Institute of India,Pune. He has
published 5 novels, 1 play, volumes of short stories in Kannada and
several literary stories published in English. He was honoured with the
highest literary Award Jnanapeetha Award in the year 1994.He was
decorated by the Government of India with „Padmabhushan‟. His most
significant novel „Samskara‟ was filmed in the year 1970.
(2.3) The Petitioner No.3 is a well known literary figure in Karnataka.
He is a recipient of Jnanapeetha Award from Government of
India(1999) which is the country‟s highest literary Award. He is also a
recipient of Kalidasa Sanman. He was decorated with Padmabhushan

24. 24
Award in 1992.He has been honoured doctorates by Universities of
Karnataka,Dharwad,Vidyasagar University, and University,
Bhubaneshwar. He has served as member of jury of Indian Film
Festival,New Delhi and Lucknow. He is scripted and presented the film
Bhagavad Geetha as part of the serious art that shook the world for BBC.
He has acted in very famous film directed by Shyam Bengal, Basu
Chatterjee and Nagaraj as well as Satyajit Ray and Mrunal Sen. His
film script for Bhumika one the National Award and „Goduli‟ Filmfare
Award. The out standing actor in Kannada film industry, Shankarnag
who was introduced by him in „Ondanandu Kaladalli‟ won the Best
Actor Award at the International Film Festival, New Delhi. His film
„Utsav‟ in Hindi and „Kanooru Heggadathi‟ in Kannada are very
popular. His first film Samskara for which he wrote the script and played
the lead role went on to win the President Gold Medal for the best
feature film of the year 1971.His next film „Vamsha Vruksha‟ which he
wrote, directed and acted received the National Award in direction. His
other film „Kaadu‟ won the President Silver Medal and Awards for
individual performance. The International Theatre Institute of UNESCO,
Paris has nominated him as World Theatre Ambassador. His another
play won Sangeeta Natak Academy Award. His play „Nagamandala‟
was premiered in United States of America in the Year 1993.His play
„Bali‟ was premiered in UK. His other plays are Yagathi, Tuglak,
Talanda, The Dreams, Tippu Sultan commissioned by the BBC
Radio,1997. There was an Award for work in traditional theatre.He
served as Director, Film and Television Institute of India,Pune and
Director of Nehru Centre as well as the Minister of Culture, High
Commission of India, London. He was at the University of Chicago as
Visiting Professor and a Full Bright play right-in-residence. He was
Chairman of Sangeeta Natak Academy and formerly Indian Co-

25. 25
chairman for the Joint Media Committee of the Indo-US sub-committee
on education and culture.
(2.4) The petitioner no.4 is a natural poet and spontaneous poet of
native wisdom; the folk art. The petitioner is a recipient of Jnanapeetha
Award(2010),Devraj Urs Award (2007), Pampa Prashathi(2004),Kavi
Sanman (2004).He was decorated with Padmashree in the year 2001.He
is a well known Kannada poet and play writer. He is a recipient of
Sangeeta Natak Academy Award(1983) and Central Sahitya Academy
Award in 1991.He is a former Member of Legislative Council, founder
Vice Chancellor of Kannada University. He was the Chairman of
National School of Drama Society, New Delhi and Karnataka Nataka
Academy,Bangalore. His well known play „Joe Kumaraswamy‟ is
awarded Kanakadevi Chottopadaya Award as the best play in India in
the year 1975.
(3) The petitioners are aggrieved by the wrongful refusal to implement
and enforce the fundamental right to Free and Compulsory Education
guaranteed to every child in the age group of 6 to 14 years. Even though
the right of Education to free and compulsory Education Act,2009
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) has been enacted, the respondents
have not even framed the necessary rules as contemplated under section
38 of the said Act. On the contrary, the respondents are indulging in acts
omissions militating against the mandate of the Constitution and the said
Act. They are not only honouring the right of children and not
implementing the Act, but are also going a step further even to deny the
existing facilities to impart education to the children of Karnataka. The
Respondents are making efforts to deny education to the neediest
children of the State in remote and inaccessible areas on the pretext of

26. 26
low enrolment of children in the schools. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have presented this writ petition on behalf of lakhs of
children so affected and millions of families whose children are denied
education by closure of the neighbourhood schools on the pretext of low
enrolment.