Right to education

2024 MLD 638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-A

MBBS and BDS Prospectus For Admission to Government Medical and Dental Institutions of Punjab issued by the University of Health Sciences, Lahore for session 2002-23, Sr. No.5

Admission and procedure for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS)

Right to education

In the present case, the petitioner duly qualified the 'MDCAT' and was on open merit list but due to late intimation by the Medical University itself, he was deprived of his fundamental right to education as guaranteed under Article 25-A of the Constitution

High Court directed respondents (University of Health Sciences Lahore and Rawalpindi Medical University) to give admission to the petitioner in first year of MBBS sessions 2022-23

Constitutional petition was allowed , in circumstances .

2023 PLC(CS) 1526 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-ARight to educationScope and significanceEducation is either formal or informal

Formal education is imparted through the medium of educational institution e.g. School, Colleges, etc. set up in the public and private sector

Informal education is a general term for education outside of standard school setup

It refers to various forms of alternative education such as non-schooling or house schooling, etc.

Since right to education has been declared to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the Courts are under obligation to protect such right

Right to education is a Fundamental Right as it ultimately affects quality of life which has nexus with other fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 & 9 of the Constitution

Awareness of rights and duties, growth of civic consciousness in a society, enjoyment of Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution and legal empowerment of people depend to a great extent on quality of education

People cannot be free in the real sense unless they are properly educated.

2023 PLC(CS) 1526 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-ARight to educationScope

State is responsible to provide education to its citizens, children and youth without any discrimination of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth.

2020 CLC 1465 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25-A & 199Constitutional petitionFundamental rightsRight to educationScope

Petitioner sought indulgence of High Court for direction to authorities repairing and development of schools in question

Authorities assured High Court that maximum development work would be carried out throughout the Province without any discrimination

Effect

Word 'fundamental' was purposely used to place such rights on higher pedestal than other common rights available to a citizen and also to emphasize upon their importance as being fundamental to the life and existence of citizens

Constitution guarantees number of valuable fundamental rights to citizens of Pakistan

Every such right is valuable and important in its own way but right to education is one of the most important rights and is actually 'fundamental' in its literal sense

Education changes and improves the vision, thinking, knowledge, outlook and attitude of its recipients and resultantly their quality of life and that of their family members improves

High Court directed to issue notices to concerned authorities for compliance of commitment given in the Court

Constitutional Petition was allowed accordingly.

2019 PLD 28 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5Punjab Education Code, Art. 29Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, Chapter 19, R. 1-AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 25-ARight to educationWords 'in such manner as may be determined by law'Age for educationScope

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education was aggrieved of judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court whereas application of Rules pertaining to minimum age limit for appearing in Secondary School Certificate Examination was suspended

Validity

Provision of Art.25-A of the Constitution only dealt with compulsory duty of state for furnishing or providing children of 5 to 16 years with free education

Article 25-A of the Constitution did not clearly specify or lay down that only children of 5 years of age would be admitted to Class-I

Manner of providing education was to be determined by law but Art.25-A of the Constitution did not call for restricting right of a child to receive education by imposing age restriction

Words 'in such manner as may be determined by law' meant the way in which a thing was required to be done or was to be achieved through promulgation of law

Punjab Education Code was simply a code followed by Boards but it was not made under authority of any Statute or Act

At the most, Punjab Education Code could be treated as Code containing directions for regulating education sector

Neither Board nor any other person or authority could be declared to be bound to follow same to exclusion of other powers vested in Board or in violation of rights of parties

Abilities of children of particular age could not be taken into consideration for applying age restrictions as same would tantamount to restricting right of an individual to receive education which was his fundamental right and was included in right to life provided in Arts. 9 & 25-A of the Constitution

Board's Committee was not empowered to impose restriction on education that was neither provided by Constitution nor by Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014

Decision of Board to impose age restriction on education by restricting admission to Class-IX did not have support or backing of any law

High Court declared that placing of age restriction through R.1-A of Chap.19 of Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore for seeking admission into Class-IX was ultra vires the Constitution and Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 MLD 97 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 24-A & 25Right to educationDiscrimination

Petitioner was Dental Surgeon registered with Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and was aggrieved of not being granted admission in Master of Dental Surgery (MDS)

Validity

Petitioner obtained highest marks in National Testing Service and was ahead of selected candidates

Distinction certificates of petitioner were not taken into consideration while preparing merit list

Every citizen had a Fundamental Right to be treated in accordance with law without discrimination on basis of equality

Right to get education was basic right of every citizen and courts were under obligation to protect such rights

High Court directed the authorities to allow admission of petitioner in MDS without disturbing candidates already selected by making special arrangements admissible under law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLD 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-ARight to educationScope

Quality of education included in the concept of free and compulsory education was the right to receive education of high quality

If the child had a right to free education, he also had a right to good education

Said two elements existed in tandem with each other.

2018 CLCN 31 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 21 & 29 & Regln. 4(26)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25-ARight to educationScope

Petitioners assailed imposition of late fee charges by Education Board for failure of submission of admission forms in time

Policy decision of the Board

Scope

Petitioners had contended that due to negligence of the school staff their admission forms could not be processed in time for which they must not be penalized

Board authorities stated that in view of statutory strength of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, Board could take any decision for smooth process of examinations and such policy decision could not be assailed under constitutional jurisdiction before High Court

Validity

Section 10 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, provided that the Board would have power to organize, regulate, develop and control intermediate and secondary education and S. 21 of the said Act envisaged that Board would make rules regarding the admissions and examinations

Said provisions clearly manifested that the impugned decision taken by the Board had been passed on the statutory strength of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 and the regulations made thereunder

Right of education was a Fundamental Right of every citizen which could not be taken away through any subordinate legislation, however, in the present case, the Board was a body corporate having its autonomous status and its very purpose was to run the educational affairs which were being regulated by an Act of Provincial Legislature

Imposition of late fee charges was somewhat a policy decision by the Board to regulate the examinations smoothly and properly and the object was to curb any delay or hindrance in the examination process which was not violative of any provisions of the Constitution, rather, it could be termed as a policy decision and until and unless the same did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness or establish mala fide, High Court could not annul the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2016 PLC(CS) 1267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-ARight to educationScope

Every man and woman had right to acquire ability to read, write and attain knowledge without discrimination.

2016 PLD 266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25A, 25, 9, 189 & 199Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtJudicial restraintEducational institutionCriteria for admissionMaximum age-limitEquality of citizensDiscrimi-nationReasonable classification Intelligible differentiaRight to education

Petitioner was granted provisional admission to respondent University, however the same was rescinded when the petitioner placed on record his date of birth, which per the University prospectus did not entitle him for admission as he was over the age of 25

Contention of petitioner was that restricting admission to candidates under the age of 25 for admission was illegal and unconstitutional

Validity

Article 25A of the Constitution provided right to free and compulsory education of children between ages of 5 to 16 and did not expressly provide for right of a person of advanced age, such as the petitioner and it would not be appropriate to stretch the said fundamental right to the petitioner who was admittedly beyond the age of 16 years and was seeking higher and professional education at a University

Testing the impugned criteria on the threshold of discrimination to citizens beyond the age of 25 years, it was to be noted that the impugned criteria had created a class of applicants within a particular age group who could apply for admission for the bachelors degree at the respondent University and the Court had to see whether such classification qualified the legal test of Constitutionality or otherwise

Impugned criteria not only had an intelligible differentia but also had nexus with advancement of education and encouraged students of a certain age group and thus such "policy decision" of the respondent university passed the "test of classification"

On basis of the principles of "reasonability", the impugned criteria was not unreasonable

Respondent university had only granted provisional admission to the petitioner and directed him to submit correct date of birth and on receiving the same, had passed the impugned decision and by granting such provisional admission; the respondent university had retained authority to recall the same prior to finalization of admission

High Court observed that in line with decisions of the Supreme Court, complete judicial restraint was to be exercised by not granting relief sought by petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 PLD 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Right to educationScope and extentFundamental and unalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan to seek education

Every educational institution was duty bound to impart best possible education to its students according to their needs, choice, wishes and desires

In consideration of receiving education, it was duty of every student to pay agreed education and examination fee to educational institution, to show respect to teachers, and also to follow disciplinary rules of institution.

2016 PLD 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Right to education'No Tuition Policy', validity ofDoctrine of proportionalityApplicabilityRights and duties of students and educational institutionsScope and enforceability

College did not allow plaintiff to appear in final A-Level examination as she had taken private tuition against their 'No Tuition Policy'

Plaintiff was, however, allowed to sit in final examination as per direction of the Court under interim relief

Plaintiff filed present application seeking directions to the College to the effect that her result of final examination be released, and school leaving certificate be issued along with any other documents that might be required by her

Validity

Defendant-college admittedly did allow their students to take tuitions subject to conditions that prior permission in that behalf was obtained from the college by student and tuitions were taken only from faculty of the college

College never had any objection to plaintiff's act itself whereby she took tuitions, which was also permissible according to their policy

College's entire case was on the ground that she had taken tuition without permission

Colleges, in such event, could remove plaintiff from school according to their own orientation but could not withhold her results or school leaving certificate

Before taking any adverse action against student for wrong committed by him, it must have been ascertained whether such wrong was "legal wrong" or "moral wrong"

High Court observed that acts as cheating in tests or examinations, violence or vandalism, use of drugs or arms, obscenity and vulgarity, failure in observing punctuality and maintaining attendant, or any such act, which was of serious in nature, committed by students, could not, and should not, be allowed or tolerated under any circumstances

Students were legally and morally bound not to indulge in any of the said acts, otherwise, they would be liable to punitive or penal consequences

All other duties and obligations which students were required or expected to do, whether by themselves or by their educational institutions, were moral duties and obligations

Non-performance of moral duties and obligations did not entail any punitive or penal consequences against them nor could same be enforced against them

Obligation to seek permission for tuitions from college was merely moral obligation, non-fulfilment of which could not expose plaintiff to any punitive actions (punitive actions provided during orientation given to students' parents)

As per college's own 'No Tuition Policy', 'students who would fail to adhere to said policy may have to face consequences such as being dropped from the subject in question, being made to register privately for CIE examinations or being asked to withdraw from college altogether'

Word 'may' used in said policy was significant, which implied that consequences mentioned in the policy for not adhering to same, were not clearly mandatory and possibly not uniformly applicable to all

Policy was internal policy of college, having been developed by on its own, thus could not be deemed to have force of law or affect or take away valuable rights of students to have access to their fundamental right of education

College undertook to comply with orders of the High Court passed on present application

College was directed by High Court to take all necessary steps for release of result of plaintiff.

2016 PLD 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Right to educationScope and extent

High Court observed that right of student to choose tuitions or style of learning according to his or her own needs and requirements could not be restricted, curtailed or denied

Primary responsibility of educational institutions to care about results and future of their students, but they could not rule or regulate lives of their students.

2015 PLC(CS) 1026 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25-ARight to educationScope

Compulsory education to all children of the age of 5 to 16 years to be ensured.

2014 SCMR 396 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25ARight to educationProvincial Governments, duty ofScope

After devolution of the subject of education to the Provinces (by way of 18th Amendment to the Constitution), it was obligatory on the Provincial Governments to ensure that children of respective areas received education as a Fundamental Right at all tiers of the education system; and this was only possible if all the Provincial Governments as well as the Federal Government assigned top most priority to the subject of education because by imparting good education to children progress could be made and prosperity of the country could be ensured.

2014 SCMR 396 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25ARight to educationEducation, importance ofRole of teachers in educating childrenEducation played an important role in the successful life of an individualAbsence of education impeded progress of the societyEducation played an important role to promote knowledge and understanding of rural communitiesEducated person was in a better position to contribute in the development of the society

Education was a key to move forward and achieve success in life, and in such regard, teachers played the most important role in educating children and developing their capabilities and skills to meet the challenges of future life.

2014 PLD 86 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Arts.25-A & 199Constitutional petitionRight to educationGrievance of petitioner was that Provincial Government was not providing books to students of government schoolsValidityState to ensure that all children go to school and remain in schoolDuty cast upon the State was not even close to fulfilment and amongst children the girls were being neglected the mostMerely constructing a school and providing free textbooks was not enough to get children to school

Environment was needed to be created whereby there was desire on the part of parents to send their children to school and the school environment was such that it beckoned children who would be unhappy to miss school

High Court directed that Provincial Government to carry out a physical audit of schools situated in each district of province and to maintain a hardcopy as well as a computerized/photographic record with names of teachers employed/posted at each school and periodically to update the same; that Provincial Government should measure lands on which schools were situated and relevant entries be made in revenue records to secure the same and to prevent encroachment and illegal transfer of school properties; that Provincial Government to ensure that school buildings display in conspicuous place the fact that it was a school and within the school building there should be disclosure of teachers employed at each school; that Provincial Government should inform the Board about number of subjects and books that were required for next academic year well in advance and Finance Department should make necessary allocation in budget; that Board should print and distribute school books in timely manner to ensure that the same were available when academic year would start; that Principal or teachers of each school should maintain a record of children attending school and mark their daily attendance; that Education department, Provincial Government should devise a comprehensive format for inspection of schools and District Education Officer should ensure that such inspection was carried out periodically in his/her district and that Provincial Government should take tangible measures to ensure that all children, boys and girls, from the age of five through sixteen attend school

High Court further observed that for the consideration of Provincial Government that School buildings should he designed and constructed in accordance with the prevailing physical environment, ensuring that the school looks welcoming, is environmentally friendly and does not require frequent maintenance. In this regard the Government may consider not to have the facade of the school building and walls plastered or painted and instead retain the brick-look, which will result in considerable saving of cost and also ensure the same continues to look presentable; that those who were killing/attacking teachers or destroying schools should not be given coverage on the media to propagate their views or advocate their cause or justify such acts

Such organizations may also be proscribed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if they were not already proscribed and that to spread the message of Islam, through the media and other sources, advocating reading, writing and acquiring knowledge as a religious duty of all Muslims, as well as being a requirement of the Constitution, and the propagate that all children from the ages of five through to sixteen, both boys and girls, are required to attend school.

2013 SCMR 54 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25A & 184(3)

Human rights case regarding grant of increment and increase in salaries of teachers in Divisional Public School (DPS) Sargodha

Right to education

Scope

Chairman of Board of Governors of the school in question submitted that in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, decision regarding enhancement of salaries of the school staff had been implemented and their salaries had been increased by more than 100 per cent; that Provincial Government had granted Rs.15 million as grant-in-aid for infrastructure development of the school, and that other administrative problems of the school were also being addressed

Supreme Court observed that by virtue of Art.25A of the Constitution, State was duty bound to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years, in such manner as might be determined by the law; that Federal and Provincial Governments were required to make sure that said right was being ensured; that a considerable improvement was being made in the administrative affairs of the school in question and salaries of its staff had been considerably enhanced by a one hundred per cent increase, therefore, no further action was called for in the matter

Case was disposed of accordingly.