The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that election-related duties assigned to school teachers do not impose an unbearable burden or subject them to excessive stress, while observing that the Commission’s constitutional powers under Article 324 of the Constitution must be exercised without adversely affecting classroom teaching.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that while the ECI has the constitutional authority to requisition teachers for election-related work, it must remain mindful of the mandate under Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which regulates deployment of teachers for non-educational work and permits such engagement only for population census, disaster relief and election duties.
The Court stressed that the statutory mandate under the RTE Act cannot be lost sight of while assigning teachers election-related work during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Court noted that requiring teachers to perform election work after spending six to eight hours in school could cause significant physical and mental stress. It, therefore, directed the ECI and its officers to remain conscious of the workload placed on teachers and ensure that election duties assigned after school hours or on non-teaching days do not become so onerous as to place an unbearable burden on them or adversely affect the quality of classroom teaching and discharge of their academic responsibilities.
The observations came while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Advocates Rajesh Kumar Gogna and Ashok Agarwal challenging the large-scale deployment of government, municipal and government-aided school teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and enumeration staff for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi.
The High Court had earlier questioned the ECI on its decision to engage teachers for SIR duties, asking whether it could invoke Article 324 of the Constitution without limitation. It had also sought to know the statutory authority under which teachers were being assigned SIR work.
In response, the ECI filed a detailed affidavit stating that no teacher was being deployed for SIR duties during school hours and that the exercise was being carried out in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School. The Commission submitted that teachers performed BLO duties only after school hours, volunteers had also been deployed for the exercise and every effort was being made to ensure that regular classroom teaching remained unaffected. It also placed on record a detailed fact sheet specifying the number of teachers, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and volunteers engaged in the exercise.
When the petitioners disputed these claims, the Bench observed that they would have to substantiate, through evidence and an affidavit, their allegation that teachers were being assigned SIR duties during teaching hours. The Court observed that if any violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment was established, appropriate action would be taken.
The Bench also questioned the language used in certain ECI circulars directing that no action be taken by school principals against teachers engaged in election work. It observed that if teachers were being assigned election duties only after school hours, there would ordinarily be no question of unauthorised absence from school. When the ECI submitted that teachers might spend nearly five hours after school performing BLO duties, the Court remarked that requiring teachers to work for nearly 11 hours a day could impose an excessive burden, particularly on women teachers with family responsibilities. At the same time, it clarified that it was not curtailing the constitutional powers of the Election Commission but only ensuring that those powers were exercised in a humane and balanced manner.
In response, the ECI submitted that efforts were being made to ensure that no teacher was overworked, refreshments were being provided during the exercise and the Special Intensive Revision was nearing completion.
The Bench permitted the petitioners to file a rejoinder to the ECI’s affidavit and listed the matter for further hearing on August 20.
The PIL alleges that the deployment of teachers for the SIR exercise has disrupted classroom teaching, particularly in government, municipal and government-aided schools, while private unaided schools have not been similarly affected. It contends that the practice violates the RTE Act, the Supreme Court’s decision in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21 and 21A. The petition seeks directions capping the requisition of schoolteachers at 10 per cent of the regular teaching staff of any school, requiring the authorities to exhaust the available pool of non-teaching staff before deploying teachers for election work and ensuring that no teacher is assigned election duties during teaching hours. It also alleges that large-scale deployment of teachers has disrupted academic activities, with classes in several schools being handled by guest teachers or teachers of unrelated subjects, thereby disproportionately affecting students studying in government schools.
The post Delhi High Court directs ECI to ensure election duties do not overburden teachers appeared first on India Legal.