New Delhi
The court directed Sharma to share his reports with the Delhi government and Delhi Police, issuing a clear instruction to schools saying, “Any authority of any school shall not be permitted to stop the committee but will fully cooperate. The court directed the Delhi police commissioner to ensure the inspection is not impeded in any manner and asked the Sharma committee to inform the top cop about their visits. “The local police shall cooperate with the committee and ensure all facilities for inspection are provided. The high court constituted the Child Safety Committee with Sharma as chairperson, with a mandate to identify gaps that make children vulnerable within schools.
Sharma told the top court that the growing number of incidents involving schoolchildren, including that of sexual assault, are shocking. The Supreme Court on Thursday directed an inspection of schools in the Capital to report gaps in safety standards and directed that a suo motu proceeding, pending before the Delhi High Court on this issue, be transferred to it.
The bench passed the order while considering an audit of private universities across the country, being examined by court-appointed amicus curiae RM Sharma, who is a former ILS officer. Sharma filed a report on child safety being an essential element in the education of children and requested the bench to hear the pending matter in the high court along with the matter on private universities’ audit. The court retained a committee, headed by a former Indian Legal Services (ILS) officer, formed by the high court in September 2023.
The bench directed the registrar-general of the Delhi High Court to transfer the case records to the top court and directed the Delhi government to file a response on the issue of child safety in schools. The court permitted Sharma and his team, comprising former member of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) Ranjana Prasad and advocate Maini Brar, to continue with the inspections.
The bench said, “Children are infants and they are voiceless, and that is why we want to hear the matter. Once the high court was monitoring, we should not hear but we are told for over two years the matter has been adjourned on eight occasions.”
