Page 43 - EW November 2024

encourage “backdoor nationalisation and/or intensifying pushing ill-considered legislation though a distracted Par-
inspector raj”. Earlier in January 2005, in a cover story liament” and “reservations policy which threatens to dumb
titled ‘Rising criticism of Right to Education Bill 2005’, down India’s few education institutions which can justi-
your editors cautioned: “the new Bill relies heavily upon fiably claim to be internationally benchmarked”, and dis-
the education bureaucracy which has conspicuously failed couraging private investment in higher education.
to improve quality of learning in government schools and First ASER Report. The inaugural Annual Status of Educa-
has imposed asphyxiating stranglehold on private schools”. tion Report (ASER) 2005 — the country’s first independent
Apex court clarification judgement. On August 13, 2005 nationwide survey of rural primary education — was re-
delivering its verdict in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maha- leased in January 2006. Published by the education NGO
rashtra (2005), the apex court upheld its earlier verdict in Pratham, ASER 2005 revealed that almost 60 percent (i.e
TMA Pai v State of Karnataka (2002) and also “clarified” 105 million) children in the age group seven-14 cannot read
its judgement in the Islamic Academy Case (2003) which and comprehend a simple story of class II level difficulty,
had diluted the apex court’s judgement in TMA Pai’s Case. and 35 percent (62 million) cannot read a simple para-
Moreover it overruled its earlier judgement in Unnikrish- graph of class I level difficulty.
nan’s Case (1993) in which it had held that private unaided The survey (confined to gov-
colleges were obliged to provide professional (medicine, ernment and private schools in
engineering) education to state government mandated quo- rural India) also revealed that
tas of students who topped their CETs (common entrance 41 percent (72 million) children
tests), at government prescribed tuition fees. Reaffirming in the age group seven-14 are
its verdict in the TMA Pai Case, the court reiterated that unable to solve two-digit sub-
Central and state governments have no right to appropriate traction or three number divi-
admission quotas at arbitrary tuition fees in private profes- sion sums.
sional colleges they haven't funded or financed. EW comment. “ASER 2005 is
EW comment. The Supreme Court’s judgement and espe- a damning indictment of the
cially its abolition of state government quotas at prescribed abysmal quality education be-
fees outraged state governments and political parties na- ing delivered in the country's
tionwide. In a cover story titled ‘Professional education free- 700,000 rural government and private primary schools…
dom verdict sparks constitutional crisis’ (October 2025), Six years after publication of PROBE 1999 stirred the
your editors welcomed the apex court’s judgement stating conscience of the public and rudely awoke the nation's
that rather than increasing capacity in government profes- educationists from their stupor, ASER 2005 indicates that
sional colleges, “profligate Central and state governments teaching-learning achievements within the vitally impor-
had resorted to the easy option of expropriating incre- tant elementary education system continue to be abysmal.
mental capacity in private sector institutions at arbitrarily Against this backdrop, the emphasis of SSA and the massive
imposed, populist tuition fees to favoured constituencies,” universalisation of elementary education effort in general
thus wrecking private college finances. being made by the Central and state governments needs to
be shifted from inputs to outcomes,” wrote your editors in
93rd Constitution Amendment 2006. To a cover story ‘Taxes down the drain: Little learning in gov-
nullify the judgement of the Supreme ernment schools’ (EW March 2006). Since then, the annual
Court in PA Inamdar vs. State of Maha- ASER survey and its findings have been regularly cited in
rashtra which reaffirmed that the State EW stories, calling the government to focus attention on
cannot impose its quota reservation improving student learning outcomes.
policies on private unaided colleges, the OBC reservation diktat. On April 5, Union HRD minister Ar-
Union HRD ministry responded with the 104th Constitution jun Singh announced that the 17-party coalition UPA gov-
Amendment Bill which pointedly overruled this unanimous ernment at the Centre has approved his ministry's proposal
apex court judgement. Parliament unanimously approved to reserve an additional 27 percent (in addition to the 22.5
the Bill which became the Constitution 93rd Amendment percent reserved quota for scheduled castes and scheduled
Act, 2005 when President Kalam signed it on January 20, tribes) of capacity in Central government promoted univer-
2006. Subsequently, a new clause was added to Article 15 sities and education institutions (JNU, IITs, IIMS, AIIMS,
of the Constitution permitting the State to decree reserva- etc) for OBC (other backward castes) students. While this
tions for any socially and educationally backward classes of out-of-the-blue reservation diktat evoked studied criticism
citizens or for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in all from the intelligentsia and media, the student community
private educational institutions, including schools. particularly in north India, responded with nationwide pro-
EW comment. In a cover story titled ‘Licence permit-quo- tests and campus rioting.
ta-raj blitzkrieg dismays Indian academia’ (EW February), EW comment. Our cover story ‘Reservation shadow over
your editors criticised the UPA government for “recklessly campus India’ (EW May 2006) highlighted that this new

NOVEMBER 2024 EDUCATIONWORLD 43