Noting that the student had approached it at the ‘eleventh hour’, the high court took a ‘compassionate view’ and directed the school to permit him to appear for his board practicals. Hearing the plea of a Class 10 student to appear in his board practical exams even though his name was struck off by his school over non-payment of school fees, the Delhi High Court recently held that not allowing a student to take examinations infringes upon the student’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. A single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna in its January 17 decision held that a child cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or be barred from taking examinations in the middle of an academic session for non-payment of fees. “Education is the foundation which shapes the future of a child, and which in turn, shapes the future of society in general. Therefore, not allowing a student to take examinations, especially the Board Examinations, would be infringement of the rights of a child akin to Right to Life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court has expanded the rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India and education is certainly one of the important rights which would be encompassed under right to life. In furtherance of the same, Article 21A of the Constitution of India provides for Right to Education, wherein the State has been ordained to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years,” the bench said. The high court, however, noted that the student approached the court at the “eleventh hour” when his name had been struck off by the school on September 7, 2022, and then subsequently on November 18, 2022. Although the court “deprecated” the conduct of the student, taking a “compassionate view”, it directed the school to permit him to take his board practicals from January 18. The high court directed the school to issue a Class 10 CBSE roll number so that the student can take up the board exams. The court further directed the school to allow the student to attend classes “that may be held by the school for imparting education to the children” for appearing in the board exams. In order to “balance equities”, the court observed that it is imperative that the student pays some amount as fees to the school. Taking note of the financial condition of the student’s father, the high court directed the student to pay Rs 30,000 to the school within four weeks of the order. The high court noted that in Indian society, Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations are critical, having “decisive repercussions and bearing on the future of a student”. At the same time, the court said, a private unaided school cannot be forced to retain a child who is unable to pay fees, who was not admitted in the economically weaker section (EWS) or disadvantaged group (DG) quota. “The constitutionality and validity of Rule 35 of DSER (Delhi School Education Rules), 1973, which authorises the head of the school to strike off the name of a student from the rolls of the school on account of non-payment of fees, has not been struck down by any court of law,” the high court opined. The court said that in such a case, the rights of a child to education have to be balanced with the rights of the school under DSER. “If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is currently in Class 10th, for which registration with the CBSE for appearing in Class 10th Board Examination has already taken place. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot be directed to take admission in a new school, when the current academic session has almost ended and the board examinations are round the corner. Not allowing the petitioner to take up the board examinations would put the petitioner at a great hardship,” the high court said, allowing the student’s plea.