Anuradha Barkur Baliga v. Airaa Academy

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2025WP/1407/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru | WP No. 1407 of 2024 (EDN-RES) | Anuradha Barkur Baliga v. Airaa Academy & Others | Decided 05.02.2025 by K.S. Hemalekha, J. | Keywords: ADHD; inclusive education; RPWD Act 2016 Schedule of Disabilities; specific learning disabilities; Article 21-A; Right to Education Act 2009; CBSE-affiliated school; expulsion/removal mid-academic year; Core Committee resolution 03.01.2024; Annexure-C; NIMHANS fresh assessment; Individual Education Plan (IEP) from USA school; child safety; assault on fellow student; Parents-Teachers Meeting; Montessori method Grades 1–6; compensation prayer Rs.5,00,000 (not granted). Disposition: writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — no prayer accepted; writ petition dismissed. ¶¶125

Anuradha Barkur Baliga Vs Airaa Academy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — no prayer accepted; writ petition dismissed.

¶¶125

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any case for granting relief as prayed in the writ petition in the present facts and circumstances of the case. +1 more

¶¶48

Court's answer

ADHD is not explicitly mentioned in the Schedule of Disabilities of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; the Act recognises 'specific learning disabilities', and ADHD might fall under that category if it significantly affects learning abilities.

¶¶65

Ratio / Principle

On the facts, the ward's behaviour was unmanageable and was affecting the other children; therefore the denial of continuation in the school was in the interest of safety.

¶¶119

Key takeaways

General principle recited: courts, including the Apex Court, have time and again emphasised inclusive education and the duty of schools to accommodate children with disabilities under Articles 14, 21 and 21-A; however, where a child's behaviour is found to be a direct threat to other students, courts have upheld the action taken by the school.obiter¶¶119
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the ward is a child of special abilities.ratio¶¶65
The framed point is answered in the negative: the petitioner, having not specified any learning disability of the child or any such disability as mentioned in the Act, is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Education — Expulsion of 8-year-old child from Grade III mid-academic session by Core Committee resolution dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure-C) of CBSE-affiliated school following Montessori method (Grades 1–6) — Child reported to have Attention Deficit Hypersensitivity Disorder (ADHD) per assessments made in the USA; school insisted on fresh assessment at NIMHANS — Complaints of assault on a fellow minor child and incidents affecting safety of children — Prayers to quash resolution and direct re-admission not pressed, child having been admitted to a different school — Claims founded on Articles 14, 21 and 21-A, RPWD Act 2016, RTE Act 2009, including Rs.5,00,000 as compensation — Held: ADHD is not explicitly mentioned in the Schedule of Disabilities to the RPWD Act, 2016; though the Act recognises 'specific learning disabilities' and ADHD might fall therein if it significantly affects learning abilities, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the ward is a child with special abilities — Where a child's behaviour is unmanageable and affects other children, denial of continuation was in the interest of safety; inclusive-education principle does not assist where the pupil's conduct is a direct threat to fellow students — Writ petition dismissed. (K.S. Hemalekha, J., 05.02.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1407 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANURADHA BARKUR BALIGA, W/O VIGNESHWARA BALIGA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.3839, 13^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 111

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.M. BALIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AIRAA ACADEMY, REP. BY ITS FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, MRS. AMITHA PRASHANTH, HAVING ITS PREMISES AT S.NO.55/6, 7, 8, HEMMIGEPURA, BANASHANKARI 6^TH STAGE, BENGALURU-60

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶16

CENTRE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 092.

¶17

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY), ROOM NO.225, 'C' WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 115

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. M.R. SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., CGC FOR R4)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C BEING THE RESOLUTION DATED 03/01/2024 PASSED BY THE CORE COMMITTEE OF R1 AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 21-A OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND DIRECT THE R1 TO RE-ADMIT THE PETITIONERS CHILD AVYAY K. BALIGA TO GRADE 3 OF ITS SCHOOL AIRAA ACADEMY FOR THIS CURRENT ACADEMIC YEAR -2023-24 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:

¶27

(i) To quash Annexure-C being the resolution dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Core Committee of respondent No.1 as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution and direct the respondent No.1 to re-admit the petitioner’s child Avyay K. Baliga to Grade 3 of its school Airaa Academy for this current academic year – 2023-24;

¶28

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing respondents No.1 to implement the RPWD Act, 2016 and the Rules thereunder, to provide inclusive education and enable the petitioner’s child Avyay as well as other children with Special Needs to avail their Right to Education under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, read with Right to Education Act, 2009 in order to adapt themselves in the main stream society and live a dignified life.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶30

(ii-a) To direct the 1^st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000=00/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as compensation / damages to the petitioner for the violation and deprivation of the child’s fundamental rights under Article 21-A read with Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and further regarding their duties and obligations under the above laws and

¶31

(iii) To allow this writ petition with exemplary costs and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

does not press prayer No.1 of the writ petition stating that the petitioner’s child has been admitted to a different school.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1-school.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶37

The respondent No.1 is a school that is affiliated

¶38

to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and

¶39

offers education to children based on the Montessori Method of education from Grade 1 to Grade 6 and CBSE pattern is followed from Grade 7 onwards. The petitioner sought admission of the child in Grade-III by submitting

¶40

an application, the respondent No.1 considering the situation of relocation from the USA to India in the middle of the academic year had admitted the ward to Grade-III.

¶41

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has failed to respect the rights of the child and the petitioner as a parent under the said laws has violated the right to privacy by unnecessarily involving the Parent Teachers Association members in a very sensitive matter of the child’s health and special needs. It is stated by the petitioner that the assessment and diagnosis made by the Doctors in USA vide Annexure-D and District Public School, USA indicates that the child is suffering from Attention Deficit Hypersensitivity Disorder (ADHD) and respondent

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶43

No.1 insisting for a fresh assessment at NIMHANS Child Care is subjecting the child to further trauma and mental harassment and it is uncalled for.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 be directed to provide inclusive education and enable the petitioner’s child as well as other children with special needs to avail their right of education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and non providing of education to the petitioner and the action of respondent No.1 in ousting the child from the school right in the middle of the academic is in violation of the fundamental right of the ward.

¶45

Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supporting the statement of objections filed inter alia contended that the school had made all efforts from their end to see that amicable settlement would be arrived and the respondent No.1-school insisted the petitioner and her family members to get an assessment to be done of the child by NIMHANS as there

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶47

was no material forthcoming to indicate that the ward was a child with special ability and the disorder mentioned at Annexure-D does not in any way indicate that the child is with special abilities and the prayer sought by the petitioner as a fundamental right cannot be raised in this writ petition as the ward is not a child with special ability and the prayer sought in the writ petition would be in the guise of a Public Interest Litigation. So far as the prayer seeking compensation, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if any fundamental right, if so is violated and in the present case, there is no violation of fundamental right as raised by the petitioners herein.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, ‘whether the petitioner has made out any case for granting relief as prayed in the writ petition in the present facts and circumstances of this case'?

¶49

Annexure-D is the document produced by the petitioners to indicate that the petitioner is suffering from

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶51

ADHD. It is the contention of the petitioner that an Individual Education Plan (IEP) was prepared for the ward at the school at USA to positively reinforce and help the child to cope with behavioural difficulties as the IEP worked well the petitioner suggested to implement the IEP to be adopted by the school respondent No.1 which according to the petitioner was rejected.

¶52

In this context, learned Senior counsel for the school would submit that the issue in the ward is not child’s learning disability or any other health related issue but behavioral issue of the child, and taking this court to Annexure-R5 and R6 annexed to the objection statement would submit that complaint were received from the parents of the students involving assault to another minor child and various incidents which involved the safety of all children in the care and custody of the school.

¶53

The behavior aspect was brought to the notice of the parents of the ward in Parents Teachers Meeting. Annexure-C is the committee resolution on a meeting held

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶56

on 02.01.2024. The concerns in the meeting were about

¶57

the behavior of the child, which reads as under:

¶58

The child's constant disrespect to personal space and property of his fellow learners.

¶59

The facilitators assigned to the class constantly monitoring his behaviour to ensure that he as well as the other learners are not harmed.

¶60

A review and assessment based on the feedback by the teachers brought to the notice of the coordinator of the child causing self-harm with the intent to blame his peers and facilitators, as reported to the concerned facilitator by the child himself.

¶61

Feedback has been given to the child's parents by his facilitators periodically yet there has only been denial and instead the onus placed on the school to ensure his better behaviour.

¶62

The assessment arrived at the resolution was

¶63

about the child’s constant misbehavior and harming the

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶65

fellow classmates. The respondent No.1 – school passed a resolution dated 03.01.2024 as indicated above. In the light of various incidents of the child’s behavior in the school at different intervals and causing lot of hardship to the various minor students of the school, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent has illegally denied education to the petitioner’s eight year old child under the RTI Act, 2009 is unsustainable as the petitioner who seeks protection from discrimination and benefits under the Rights of Persons Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘Act’ for short) which provides a legal framework for the protection of the persons with disabilities and their rights, however ADHD is not explicitly mentioned in the Act’s Schedule of Disabilities. The Act recognizes “specific Learning Disabilities” as an disability and ADHD might fall under the category if it significantly affects learning abilities, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the ward is a child of special abilities. The disability schedule of the 2016 Act is as follows:

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶68

1. Physical disability.—

¶69

A. Locomotor disability (a person’s inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal or nervous system or both), including—

¶70

(a) “leprosy cured person” means a person who has been cured of leprosy but is suffering from—

¶71

(i) loss of sensation in hands or feet as well as loss of sensation and paresis in the eye and eyelid but with no manifest deformity;

¶72

(ii) manifest deformity and paresis but having sufficient mobility in their hands and feet to enable them to engage in normal economic activity;

¶73

(iii) extreme physical deformity as well as advanced age which prevents him/her from undertaking any gainful occupation, and the expression “leprosy cured” shall construed accordingly;

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶76

(b) “cerebral palsy” means a Group of nonprogressive neurological condition affecting body movements and muscle coordination, caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring before, during or shortly after birth;

¶77

(c) “dwarfism” means a medical or genetic condition resulting in an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimeters) or less;

¶78

(d) “muscular dystrophy” means a group of hereditary genetic muscle disease that weakens the muscles that move the human body and persons with multiple dystrophy have incorrect and missing information in their genes, which prevents them from making the proteins they need for healthy muscles. It is characterised by progressive skeletal muscle weakness, defects in muscle proteins, and the death of muscle cells and tissue;

¶79

(e) “acid attack victims” means a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.

¶80

13 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶82

B. Visual impairment —

¶83

(a) “blindness” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction—

¶84

(i) total absence of sight; or

¶85

(ii) visual acuity less than 3/60 or less than 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible correction; or

¶86

(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degree.

¶87

(b) “low-vision” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely:—

¶88

(i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60 upto 3/60 or upto 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible corrections; or

¶89

(ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40 degree up to 10 degree.

¶90

C. Hearing impairment—

¶91

(a) “deaf” means persons having 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶94

(b) “hard of hearing” means person having 60 DB to 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

¶95

D. “speech and language disability” means a permanent disability arising out of conditions such as laryngectomy or aphasia affecting one or more components of speech and language due to organic or neurological causes.

¶96

2. Intellectual disability, a condition characterised by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning (reasoning, learning, problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour which covers a range of every day, social and practical skills, including—

¶97

(a) “specific learning disabilities” means a heterogeneous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental aphasia;

¶98

(b) “autism spectrum disorder” means a neurodevelopmental condition typically appearing in the first three years of life that significantly affects a

¶99

15 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶101

person's ability to communicate, understand relationships and relate to others, and is frequently associated with unusal or stereotypical rituals or behaviours.

¶102

3. Mental behaviour,—

¶103

“mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.

¶104

4 . Disability caused due to—

¶105

(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as—

¶106

(i) “multiple sclerosis” means an inflammatory, nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other;

¶107

(ii) “parkinson's disease” means a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movement, chiefly affecting middle-

¶108

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶109

aged and elderly people associated with degeneration of the basal ganglia of the brain and a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

¶110

(b) Blood disorder—

¶111

(i) “haemophilia” means an inheritable disease, usually affecting only male but transmitted by women to their male children, characterised by loss or impairment of the normal clotting ability of blood so that a minor would may result in fatal bleeding;

¶112

(ii) “thalassemia” means a group of inherited disorders characterised by reduced or absent amounts of haemoglobin.

¶113

(iii) “sickle cell disease” means a hemolytic disorder characterised by chronic anemia, painful events, and various complications due to associated tissue and organ damage; “hemolytic” refers to the destruction of the cell membrane of red blood cells resulting in the release of hemoglobin.

¶114

5 . Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness which means a condition in which a person may have combination of hearing and visual impairments

¶115

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶116

causing severe communication, developmental, and educational problems.

¶117

6 . Any other category as may be notified by

¶118

the Central Government.

¶119

The Apex court and this court time and again has emphasized inclusive education and the duty of the school to accommodate children with disabilities under Article 14, 21 and 21A of the Constitution, however, when the a child’s behaviour is found to be a direct threat to other students, the courts have upheld the action taken by the school. In the instant case of a child's behavior being unmanageable, which is affecting the other children, the denial of continuation was in the interest of safety . The children at young age administer naughtiness but naughtiness of a child and the school as a parent would handle, the incidents narrated about behavioral aspect could be taken as naughtiness at any stretch of imagination. The petitioner instead of understanding the difficulty and the problem faced by the child and without resolving the issue is insisting to consider the report

¶120

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5368 WP No. 1407 of 2024

¶121

issued in the USA which indicates ADHD, when the school

¶122

and parents of other students complained about such behavior of the child to be violent, the petitioner should have taken a holistic approach for the betterment of child. Petitioner having not specified any learning disability of the child or any such disability as mentioned in the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition and the point framed for consideration is

¶123

answered accordingly and this court pass the following

¶124

O R D E R

¶125

(i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶126

Sd/-

¶127

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶128

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SNN

Anuradha Barkur Baliga v. Airaa Academy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Barkur Baliga v. Airaa Academy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrikanth Pombady Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vishwanatha B P Vs Department of Co-Operation

K. M. Shekarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasudevarahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadevaiah Vs the State of Karnataka