India today took the last big legislative step required to gift millions of its children the fundamental right to demand subsidised elementary education from the government, ending a 72year-long wait to fulfil a dream of the father of the nation.

The Lok Sabha this evening passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill despite concerns raised by MPs from across the political spectrum.

Once notified -- the process involves a chain of bureaucratic steps -- the law will hand citizens a legal tool they can use against the government, its officials and school authorities who prevent a child aged between 6 and 14 from receiving and completing elementary education.

"This is a revolutionary step that will help our children walk ahead with their heads held high. This is for our future," Kapil Sibal, the human resource development minister, told the House. Nodding vigorously and thumping her desk in agreement was Sonia Gandhi, seated next to Sibal. Sonia had only yesterday quizzed the HRD minister on concerns raised over the bill.

Mahatma Gandhi had first spoken about the need for universalisation of elementary education in 1937.

The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha earlier in this Parliament session, eight years after a constitutional amendment that made the right to education a fundamental right pending a law for its implementation.

Parliament's sanction for the landmark law triggers a chain of bureaucratic procedures that must be completed before children and their parents can hope to practically benefit from it, officials said.
The law is implementable only after notification.

The human resource development ministry and the Finance Commission need to finalise the funding required to implement the law. The norms for sharing the financial burden between the Centre and states also have to be evolved.
For this financial year, the Centre will need to obtain Parliament's sanction for revised budget allocations.

The law requires states and the Centre to set up a slew of agencies responsible for implementation and monitoring.

"Only after all these procedures are over can parents and children really hope to successfully enforce the right to education," a senior official said. "But today is a day to celebrate. This is a champagne moment," the official added with a smile, minutes after the bill was passed.

During the debate, several MPs drew attention to inadequacies voiced by educationists and civil society groups.

Hyderabad MP Asauddin Owaisi -- a UPA ally -- accused the coalition of reneging on its pledges towards minorities and violating a Supreme Court order. The right to education bill does not exempt minority institutions from a 25 per cent quota for the disadvantaged.

Article 30 of the Constitution grants minorities the right to start and manage educational institutions without government interference except in cases of corruption. The UPA, in its first term, had used this article to exempt minority institutions from OBC quotas in higher education.

Almost every member who spoke felt that the bill should have included children below 6 and till 18, instead of restricting its ambit to elementary education.

The Biju Janata Dal's Tathagata Satpathy criticised the absence of any specific measures to convince children working for a living to join school. Quoting Jamaican reggae legend Bob Marley, he said: "A hungry man is an angry man."

Former cricketer Kirti Azad (BJP) said the government was effectively demanding a "blank cheque" from Parliament by seeking approval for the bill without making its financial implications clear.

"What happens if the norms that the Centre devises for sharing finances with states are unacceptable to some states which are poor?
What happens to the bill then?" he asked.

Responding to concerns raised by Jayaprada on the provisions for differently abled children, Sibal said the government would ensure that such students benefited from the 25 per cent quota.
This, he said, will be specifically articulated in the rules.

Satpathy and the CPM's Saidul Haque accused the government of rushing the bill to claim success in its first 100 days.

The consequences of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, after it is notified For children and parents Every child aged 6 to 14, however poor, can demand schooling from a designated government officer for a prescribed "neighbourhood". This officer must ensure the child's admission to either a government school or a private school.
If the "neighbourhood" doesn't have a school, the child may be sent to one outside it (but nearby). But within three years of the law's enactment, at least one school must come up in the designated "neighbourhood". If no private school comes up, the government must set one up If the child's parents cannot pay the fees, the government will compensate the school at government school rates If a school charges capitation fees or conducts admission tests, parents can complain to the "neighbourhood" officer who can choose to impose a fine -- twice the capitation fee charged, Rs 25,000 for the first offence of conducting admission tests, and Rs 50,000 subsequently If a teacher physically assaults a child, the teacher can be punished under service rules For schools Every private school must reserve 25 per cent seats for economically weaker students who either approach the school themselves or are sent there by the "neighbourhood" officer Every school must set up a school management committee -including some parents, students, local citizens and political representatives -- that must meet regularly to monitor the implementation of the law in the school Schools that run without government recognition can be fined Rs 1 lakh and then Rs10,000 for every subsequent day they are run Schools cannot deny admission to a child because of absence of a transfer certificate Schools must have one teacher for every 30 students in primary school, and for 35 students subsequently For other citizens Any citizen can complain of law violation, even if not directly affected, to the "neighbourhood" officer. The officer can choose to either ignore the complaint or act on it Citizens can participate in the implementation of the proposed act by joining school management committees, either in the school where their child studies or any other "neighbourhood" school The fine print Victimised parents cannot directly seek prosecution of a school that violates the proposed act -- they will need sanction of the "neighbourhood" officer first Violations of the proposed act -- by a school, teachers, the Centre, states or their officers -- under "good faith" are legal. The bill does not define "good faith"