Mumbai, April 11: THE new academic year is likely to bring in a lot of relief to parents of school-going kids.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice C K Thakker and Justice D Chandrachud of the Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Deputy Director of Education to stop schools from compelling parents to buy stationery or uniforms from the school office or a particular seller.

The order was passed after two public interest litigations filed in this regard were heard. The PILs were filed separately by the Forum for Fairness in Education (FFE) and a parent, Prakash Sheth.

The copy of the order will be available to the petitioners when courts reopen after the long weekend.

‘‘This order will benefit scores of parents,’’ says Jayant Jain, president of FFE, ‘‘every year, we receive complaints from parents saying schools are forcing them to buy uniforms and stationery at high prices from the school office or from specific stores. This will put an end to all this.’’

So, while the school may have a say on specific accessories like badges, they cannot influence buying decisions with regard to shirts, trousers or pinafores.

Jain claims that parents will now end up saving upto Rs 400 on uniforms and upto Rs 300 on books and stationery. ‘‘Some schools sell a book costing Rs 20 for Rs 45. With the maximum retail price missing, parents get cheated,’’ explains Jain.

He adds that some schools used pressure tactics like withholding results until the money for the uniforms and books was paid.

Prakash Sheth, a diamond merchant, fought a legal battle against his daughter’s school in South Bombay. ‘‘The school had a new uniform and put out a notice directing all students to buy their new uniforms from one particular buyer. I refused to do this and for one whole year, my seven-year-old daughter went to school wearing her old uniform,’’ says Sheth.

Anukool Selections, a garment store in Napean Sea Road, is an outlet recommended by several schools in Mumbai. Sheth alleged that his daughter’s school and the store had entered into a monopolistic deal.

‘‘The school made it compulsory for students to buy uniforms from Anukool Selections. The fabric used wasn’t available anywhere else in Mumbai, so parents had no choice,’’ Sheth adds.

Rashesh Parekh, proprietor of Anukool Selections, denies any attempts at cornering parents. ‘‘The idea of a uniform is to ensure that everyone wears identical garments. But there is no compulsion. The school recommends a particular store so that the uniformity is maintained. And this recommendation is only for a year,’’ he points out.

After a long battle, Sheth eventually managed to break some ground.

‘‘I received a written statement from the school wherein they confessed to having entered into an arrangement with the seller and overcharging the parents,’’ he said.

Sheth then resolved matters with the school but decided to pursue the battle in the form of a PIL so that other parents did not fall into such a trap.

Sheth’s PIL was clubbed with that of the FFE. Sheth’s lawyer Rahul Thakur said that the court had, ‘‘as always, come down heavily on the commercialisaion of education’’. ‘‘Even if schools did it for convenience or as a public utility, they are in no position to exercise any kind of force,’’ Thakur said.

The Deputy Director of Education will have to enquire into the legalities of these practices within ten days and ensure that parents are not under any compulsion, he added.

 
© 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world.