On Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked the Union Government to spell out its policy framework for supplying digital devices to children from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG), stressing that access to virtual education cannot be denied when physical classes are suspended.
The case arose from a petition filed in 2020 at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting that students from EWS and DG categories studying in private unaided schools as well as government schools were unable to attend online classes because they did not have devices or internet connectivity.
In September 2020, the Delhi High Court ruled that schools opting for real-time online teaching must provide gadgets and internet packages to EWS/DG students under Section 12(1)(c) and Section 3(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. These facilities were to be provided free of cost, with schools allowed to claim reimbursement under Section 12(2).
The ruling was challenged by both the Delhi Government and the Union of India, following which the Supreme Court issued notice in February 2021 and stayed the High Court’s judgment. The matter has since centred on bridging the digital divide that affects access to education for the poorest children.
Private schools argued that they should not be compelled to bear the cost of devices up front. The State, on the other hand, maintained that it lacked the financial capacity to fund the large-scale distribution of electronic gadgets. Meanwhile, the applicants urged that without devices, virtual education becomes meaningless for EWS/DG students, especially in situations such as pollution-related school closures in Delhi-NCR.
The Court observed that Article 21A placed a constitutional obligation on the State to ensure meaningful access to education. It noted that even after the pandemic, the digital divide continued to interfere with children’s right to learn. The bench emphasised that both the Centre and States must coordinate under Section 7 of the RTE Act to evolve a workable, uniform mechanism.
Reiterating this position, the bench recorded that the Additional Solicitor General sought more time to place on record the government’s policy decisions for ensuring uniform facilities to EWS/DG children entitled to free education under Article 21A. The Court granted two weeks’ time.
The Court directed the Union Government to file, within two weeks, details of the policies and measures adopted for providing devices to EWS and DG students so they can access virtual learning. The matter will now be taken up on February 03, 2026 for further consideration.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Justice For All & Ors.
Case No.: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13267/2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Counsel for the Petitioner: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, Adv. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Apoorva Kurup, AOR Sudarshan Lamba, Adv. Pankaj Sinha, AOR Shashank Singh, Adv. Humaira Salam, Adv. Garima, Adv. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Sneha Chandna, Adv. A. Anisha, Adv. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Ujjawal Singh Parmar, Adv. Akash Sajan Sapelkar, Adv. Kamal Gupta, Adv. Harshvardhan Jha, AOR Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Sparsh Aggarwal, Adv. Aman Pathak, A.S.G. K.M. Nataraj, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Digvijay Dam, and Adv. Seema Bengani.
Counsel for the Respondent: AOR Mohini Priya, Adv. Pankhuri Shrivastava, AOR Neelam Sharma, Adv. Aditya Kumar, AOR Atul Kumar, Adv. Khagesh B. Jha, Adv. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Adv. Ankit Maan, Adv. Sweety Singh, Adv. Harsh Kumar, AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Neha Singh, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Sudarshan Lamba, Adv. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv. Geetha Rani, Adv. Karmendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Hari Sahteshwar, AOR Praveen Swarup, AOR Avijit Roy, AOR Jagrati Singh, Adv. Romil Pathak, Adv. R. S. Meena, Adv. Rajpal, Adv. Surendar Kumar, AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Akshay Verma, AOR Srijan Sinha, Adv. Himanshu Chaubey, Adv. Siddharth Garg, Adv. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Srajan Yadav, Adv. Trisha Garimala, AOR Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sr. Adv. H.L. Tikku, AOR Vikas Kumar, Adv. Yashmeet Kaur, AOR Ananta Prasad Mishra, Adv. Kamal Gupta, Adv. Harshvardhan Jha, AOR Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Sparsh Aggarwal, Adv. Tripti Gupta, and Adv. Aman Pathak.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
