Chief Secretary, GNCTD

Sub: Statutory Master Plan scheme for equal access neighbourhood schooling: WP 8954-59/2003

Ref: Our letter of 28.12.2004 (enclosed1 for ready reference)

Dear Sir,

As you are aware, our PIL for enforcing the comprehensive statutory Delhi Master Plan scheme for equal access neighbourhood schooling (of which free seats are small part) and rectification of major land use violations getting in its way was allowed by Delhi High Court by order of 27/10/2004 with directions to stop violations in 12 weeks, which elapsed a fortnight ago, without compliance.

From the counter-affidavits filed in our PIL it is clear that violations are mainly due to Delhi Government’s illegal recommendations and permissions to private schools, MCD’s failure to take its obligatory education function seriously and DDA’s failure to intervene, etc. (You might be aware the order arises from p.55 of the PIL, viz, our letter, pursuant to report sent to DDA, Delhi Government and MCD in June 2001, on which DDA had assured action in its letter of 26/09/2001 that is at p.57).

While there has been no action on time-bound directions in our PIL, last week Delhi Education Minister reiterated the 20% BPL-card based approach2 being pursued in name of order of January 2004 in Social-Jurist’s PIL (for just free seats) and today it has been reported that 30 schools have challenged the directive3 for this in court(on basis of education law). In another Social Jurist (appeal) matter neighbourhood-school is being re-defined (without reference to the statutory Plan definition).

We have repeatedly pointed out that the free seats condition cannot be enforced in isolation from its statutory context, which provides not only adequate solution but also reasonable flexibility and applies to all schools irrespective of who owns or allots the sites at whatever price. For the Social Jurist (appeal) matter we had asked that facts (also of our prior PIL) be placed in court. We now ask for the fact of non-compliance in our PIL to be placed before the court – for it to judge bonafide of continuing litigation in name of equal education in Delhi without reference to the statutory scheme for it.

To us the exclusive “discourse” on education in the Capital appears not to reflect the sentiment of those who remain committed to the constitutional commitment for education for all and seems no more than diversionary tactic spawned by obvious reluctance to rectify misuse of public land required, meant and often leased in name of President of India for equal education. Since responsibility for use of public land in Delhi vests in Central government and provisions of Delhi Master Plan are tantamount to national guidelines by virtue of approval by Parliament, this also reflects extremely poorly on the UPA government’s capability for minding education resources such as the 2% cess.

We urge you to respond to our letter under reference.

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner

cc: Vice-Chairman, DDA (with request as above)

letter to Secretary MoHRD4

(with copy to President Secretariat and Planning Commission Advisers)