NEW
DELHI: Describing the consultation process for the proposed
Educational Tribunals Bill 2010 as far from satisfactory, a
parliamentary panel has said the whole exercise seems to be
a
“hurried affair” whereby important stakeholders have either
been ignored or their consent presumed.
The
Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human
Resource Development — in its report on The Educational
Tribunals Bill 2010 tabled in Parliament on August 20 — said
a segment of the stakeholders had not been consulted at all,
adding that it was very necessary to involve stakeholders of
private institutions in the consultation process.
The committee report said the Higher Education
Department's assertion that the status of the incidence
of litigation in private institutions was likely to be
very high due to the increasing role of the private
sector. The lack of internal forum for dispute
resolution further established the failure of vision in
not consulting these institutions.
Noting that the tribunals created by the legislation
shall also have jurisdiction over the institutions
engaged in medical disciplines, the committee said that
by the Department's own admission, there was no direct
consultation with regulatory bodies, including the
Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of
India.
Also, the committee said that with education being a
concurrent subject, the proposal for setting up State
Educational Tribunals needed a wider consultation
process involving all state governments and union
territories.
With very few States having formally supported the
proposed Bill, their presumed support does not seem very
convincing.
While recommending the setting up of district-level
tribunals in 230 districts having a higher concentration
of educational institutions, the committee pointed out
that it was not clear about the status of the existing
State tribunal in case the State governments did not
agree to notify them under the proposed legislation.
Importantly, the committee wanted the term ‘unfair
practices' properly defined to ensure that it was not
open to interpretation by the tribunals and courts, and
the inclusion of the word ‘students' in the substantive
clause.
It also suggested increasing the number of members in
the State tribunals from three to five for expeditious
disposal of cases, and opposed the rationale for fixing
the age of members at 55 years as it could lead to
ineligibility of otherwise competent people, as also
reducing the number of official representatives in the
National Education Tribunal to prevent its
“bureaucratisation.”
