The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the Uttar Pradesh government holds the primary responsibility for covering the educational expenses of the minor Muslim boy who was the victim in the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping case.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that the state is obligated to pay for the child’s tuition fees, uniforms, books, and transport charges until he completes his school education, Live Law reported.
“We make it clear that as indicated in our earlier orders, it is the obligation of the state government to pay for the tuition fees, cost of uniform, books etc. and transport charges of the child till he completes school education,” said the Court.
The apex court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by activist Tushar Gandhi, which pertains to the Muzaffarnagar slapping incident and the enforcement of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
In August 2023, a video surfaced showing school teacher Tripta Tyagi instructing her students to slap a seven-year-old Muslim boy while allegedly making derogatory remarks about his religion and Islamophobic statements.
“It is for the state to take assistance of any charitable trust or charitable institution for the purposes of payment of aforesaid amounts. We again clarify that the primary responsibility of meeting this expenditure is of the state. It will also be open for the state to persuade the school authorities to bear the expenses,” Live Law quoted the top court as stating.
Three months after the incident, the state had assured the Court that the child would be admitted to another private school in Muzaffarnagar and that all educational expenses would be borne under an appropriate state scheme.
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that the child’s tuition fees for the last semester remained unpaid, uniform expenses were still pending, and transport costs had only been reimbursed two days prior.
Farasat requested that the Court direct the state to make payments directly to the school instead of routing them through the child or his father, noting that the family, who are agriculturists, could not manage the financial burden and were facing continued humiliation.
