Thread by @barandbench

Karnataka HC begins hearing a batch of petitions challenging State Govt order of banning online classes for primary School students in the state.
Only July 3, the matter was partially heard, however, no order was passed due to paucity of time.

Adv Pradeep Nayak submits that the NIMHANS report cannot be said to be basis of the Govt order. The report says that students below 10 yrs can be taught for 1-1.5 hours a day, but the Govt order completes bans education for primary school students.

Adv Suraj Naik appearing for Society St Theresa Educational says that the online classes that it is providing are not compulsory and that no extra fee is being levied for the same. He says that classes will be held for 2 hours a day for all classes, 5 days a week.

CJ Oka: Is it in the interest of the students that they look at the mobile phone continuously for two hours? Can you not appeal to parents to make sure that another gadget is used by students for online classes?

Adv Suraj Naik says that same will be done. He further says that we have left it to the parents to allow usage of any gadget that they are are comfortable with. He further informs that classes will not be continuous, it will be lectures for half an hour.

Naik also adds that the NIMHANS report is very casual, it cannot be the basis for allowing a ban on online classes.

Naik argues that PRAGYATA guidelines have been referred to out of context. The guidelines does not say that online classes should not be conducted for primary school students. The Guidelines itself says that it is only advisory in nature and not binding in any way.

Naik further adds that the guidelines is a compilation of general info pertaining to online education. It is for the school/teachers to assess the ability of the child to learn, not for the Govt.

Adv Devashish Bharuka submits that when online classes are conducted, there are 4 fundamental rights actively in place.

CJ Oka: How is the right of the parents under Article 19 infringed? How the right of free speech and expression of students is taken away by passing of Govt order?

Bharuka says because there is a complete ban on online classes.
CJ Oka: Then Article 21 A is affected.
Bharuka: Milord, I understand what your Lordships are saying, Article 21 A covers the whole gamut.

When Central Govt says that online education should be encouraged, State Govt cannot ban it, Bharuka.
CJ: In last order, Govt has permitted online classes partially.

Are CBSE School children in others states being provided with online education?, CJ asks.

I am not sure your Lordships, Bharukha.

Senior Counsel Jayna Kothari submits that pre primary students have been hit the hardest under the new Govt order. As per Govt order, teachers and parents will have an interactive session for 30 mins.
It does not say once a week.

PRAGYATA guidelines says to give joyous digital experience as online classes. It also says live classes may be conducted, not more than 45 mins. Guidelines only says that parent supervision has to be there. Pre-primary students need more care, Kothari submits.

#OnlineClasses

Kothari refers to definiton of child under Karnataka Education Act. Definition says that any boy/girl between 6 and 14 years is a child. Bulk of the whole act is to regulate education for this age group, Kothari argues. Even RTE Act deals with children between 6-14 years.

Do we want children between 3-6 age group to be deprived of education? Early learning is most important, Kothari says.

Kothari refers to an SC decision - Unnikrishnan's case which held that upto 14 years, right to life includes right to education as well. All we seek is that early learners cannot be deprived of education. It can be done in a regulated manner, this is what even MHRD says.

Adv Gowtham Raghunath submits that teachers will loose job if online classes are banned.
CJ Oka: What locus does teachers have, how are they personally affected? ... You cannot file PILs to protect jobs.

If you are questioning people losing jobs, then you need to challenge termination letter, CJ Oka says.

Online classes has nothing to do with your right. We are dismissing the petition, CJ Oka.

Pet Adv seeks permission to withdraw petition. Court allows the same.

Senior Counsel Uday Holla informs except in Maharashtra and UP (there is ban only for certain classes), online classes are conducted in all other classes.

Court turns to AG Prabhuling Navadgi. Which is the statutory power under which Govt enacted this order?, CJ Oka.
AG makes submissions. He says that State is not against online classes.
#OnlineClasses
#onlineeducation

AG Navadgi: All Writ petitions are premature.
CJ Oka: But you first banned online education and now have restricted it.

AG says that a decision has to be taken by the State towards online education. There is no violation of any Act. He adds that, there are 1.45 core students in the state now.

Unless it is a statutory body which can make recommendations, you have to tell us, under which statutory provision the order was passed, CJ Oka.
AG Navadgi: There is no decision, milords. These are only inputs.
CJ Oka: Few individuals are chosen from few schools.

CJ Oka: Show us the order under which Committee of experts was formed.

We had said earlier also, till committee comes up with recommendations, let classes continue.

AG Navadgi says that the State is concerned with the health of the children.

In order dated June 15, where is it shown that online classes will cause harm the health of students? Which is the NIMHANS opinion referred in the order?, CJ Oka.

But NIMHANS report is contrary to what you are saying. NIMHANS says that online classes may be be conducted, CJ Oka.

Bench asks whether publicity about meeting was given, asking schools to come up and participate/give recommendations?

What happened between June 15 and 23, that from ban, restriction of online classes for different age groups were put in place? CJ Oka asks.

Correction: June 27**

AG Navadgi: The June 27 order does not have an intent to restrict. Standard 9-10 have classes for 45 mins, for 4/5 subjects, 5 days a week. I don't think this is a restriction, in terms of online classes. Nobody has made any grievance in this regard.

This is only an interim arrangement, till committee files recommendations, AG Navadgi.

CJ Oka: This can't be the argument that students of villages are deprived of means for online classes, therefore, we have to deprive others. State must see how online classes can be extended to rural areas and not just urban areas.

AG Navadgi: That is not my submission, milord. State has to look into various factors, how education can be provided in rural areas, can it be given in vernacular languages etc. State wants to ensure that not a single student looses this academic year.

AG Navadgi: An element of compulsion is added for online classes. My child will fall back if he/she is not attending online classes. Such children will be left out from the "mainstream".

#OnlineClasses

AG adds that Article 21 is not a blanket right. State is concerned with safe education. State has to keep in mind how the new method of online classes will affect children.

Senior counsel Holla additionally submits that there is no scientific data placed on record by Govt to show that online classes will affect health of children. Even World Health Organization pushes for Online classes.

No order passed. Bench adjourns matter to July 7 (tomorrow).

Hearing comes to an end.

#OnlineClasses