- That all schools have School Management Committees as per 21 (1) of the Right to Education Act.

- That schools under the national child labor project are also compliant under the Act.

- That all private, unaided schools are required to disclose the number of enrollees under the 25 percent quota.

The petition is trying to bring, under one umbrella, all the issues that have emerged out of public interest” under the Right to Education Act, and the Supreme Court asked all the relevant states and central bodies to respond.<sup>26</sup> But the court recently disposed of the petition, saying that “the remedies sought were too broad for implementation and that the petitioners should instead approach the High Courts of different states” (Skelton 2017, p. 44). The National Coalition for Education has subsequently filed the case in the High Courts of 16 states and are filing public interest litigation cases demanding the regulation of fees of private and unaided schools as well as challenging the nonteaching duties of teachers (e.g. posting them for opening bank accounts, identification cards etc.).<sup>27</sup> One of the main challenges faced by civil society groups in engaging in litigation is the evidence.<sup>28</sup> For most class action cases, groups have to extrapolate from the census and the District Information System for Education data, and courts have not tended to consider this strong evidence. Compared to the signed and attested data of senior bureaucrats, the extrapolated data is deemed without merit. Groups like the NCE have tried to use citizenoriented public hearings to generate credible evidence, but with limited success. Working teachers, whose testimony could be powerful in these cases, are reluctant to testify because they might be suspended. Retired teachers, who are freer, have expressed little interest in such cases. In addition, the lack of understanding and empathy for the right to education among lawyers and judges in the lower courts is a constraint—and activist groups spend time training lawyers at the state level on key issues.

Similarly, the outcomes of cases have a fundamental issue—while courts have the capacity to provide favorable judgments and order the government to undertake remedial action, the orders ultimately have to be implemented by the bureaucracy being held in breach of the law. For example, in the case of the 25 percent quota, despite the clear rulings on the obligation of private schools to accept students from poorer backgrounds, private schools continue to flout the rulings, and the state does not have the capacity to monitor violations. Repeated litigation can provide relief to individual litigants, and perhaps extend opportunities for applicants to the same school. But the expected wider impact of such rulings has yet to be seen.

For government schools, rights advocates feel that the education bureaucracy has limited understanding of the shift from the earlier government program (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, or SSA) and the new legal framework of rights, and therefore do not see themselves as accountable. The SSA formed in 2001, aimed at reaching the goal of universal primary education based on annual work plans with short-term goals. Though it was relatively successful in increasing enrollment and improving literacy, it was not able to stem high dropout rates. But some have argued that it bypassed traditional structures such as the State Councils on Education Research and Training and took on their traditional roles of ensuring teacher training, monitoring educational performance and curriculum development, leaving them

> 26 See http://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-directs-states-union-territories-respond-plea-alleging-violationright-education-rte-act/

> 27 Interview, National Convenor, National Coalition for Education, Delhi, 27 April 2017.

> 28 Interview, National Convenor, National Coalition for Education, Delhi, 27 April 2017

23