A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACROSS VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS

Anjay Kumar; Ujjaval Pandey

doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i4.2024.4432

Authors

Dr. Anjay Kumar Assistant Professor, Law Centre-II, University of Delhi
Ujjaval Pandey Student of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i4.2024.4432

Keywords:

Edward Soja, Third Space Theory, William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Forest Of Arden, Spatial Dynamics, Identity Transformation, Social Relations, Liminality, Hybridity

Abstract [English]

For a developing society there needs awareness and literacy among people about various aspects of the contemporary world. Every society wants to have civilized and law-abiding citizens for multidirectional growth. In achieving all these objectives education and upbringing of a person plays an important role. International organizations also provide Right to education (RTE) to persons. Various international statutes also provide for RTE and its enforcement. Countries have created setup of a system to provide free education up to a certain level to its citizens. Every country has its own framework for enforcement of RTE depending upon various socio-cultural conditions. There is similarity in most of the developing and developed countries which follow a system that provides basic and compulsory education to all students on governments expenses and bear expenses of education above it as per their capacity.
In this study we would cover the application and other factors related to RTE specially of United Kingdom, United States, China and India. The study also tries to find-out the challenges in enforcing the RTE. The study will also try to developments in enforcement of RTE in international law and these targeting countries.

References

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966.

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.

The Constitution of India 1950.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 of India.

European Convention on Human Rights 1950.

European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000.

United States, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 of USA.

Education Act 1996 of UK.

The Human Rights Act 1998 of UK.

The Equality Act 2010 of UK.

UK Human Rights Act 1998.

Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1993 AIR 2178.

Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Board of Education v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

New Jersey v. TLO 469 U.S. 325 (1985). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)91199-7

Wim Groot and H. Maassenvandenbrink, “The effects of education on crime”, Applied Economics 279 Feb.2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840701604412

Dongming Qian, “The Facts and Figures Report of China’s Education Development in 2020”, Vol. 5 Issue 3 Sage Journals 540 sept. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221113868

Rui Yang & Mei Wu,” Education for ethnic minorities in China: a policy critique Rui Yang & Mei Wu”, SA-Educ Journal Vol 6 no.2, 117 Nov. 2009.

Teng Margaret Fu, “Unequal Primary Education Opportunities in Rural and Urban China”, OPEN EDITION JOURNALS Vol. 60, Jul.-Aug. 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.500

Xu Zhao, Robert L. Selmon, et.at., “Academic stress in Chinese schools and a proposed preventive intervention program”, Cogent Education, 2(1) 2015. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.1000477 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.1000477