Talk:Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. @harej 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Right to Education Bill → The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act — Relisted for further input. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to move the entry for "right


" to "Children's Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act" but am being blocked by the automated filter. The reason for this is that the Bill has received presidential assent and is now an Act. The name change is also reflective of the fact that this is the final name of the Act, unlike the civil society catch all phrase for a piece of legislation in progress. Anjela taneja (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Right to Education Act. As everyone knows, once a bill is passed it becomes an act, which just happened last month. According to the article, the full name of the act is The Children's Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, but that is completely unnecessarily long, and clearly not its common name. It was a bill for years, but now it is and forever will be, an act. It can be disambiguated when the time comes if there are any other countries with a similar act. 199.125.109.138 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:Anjela taneja (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Anjela Taneja[reply]
This reference goes by this name, "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009". --L I C 02:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anjela taneja (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Right of children it is. But its still not a Bill. This is, incidentally, why newbie editors (like me) shouldnt be moving pages.[reply]

I've changed the name in the move request. Is that ok? Feel free to modify it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1.71 lakh crore[edit]

it comes about 38 billion US dollars. hope i calculated it right. but it seems too high though. --CarTick 21:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


regarding statement "India became one of the few countries to make education a fundamental right"[edit]

should it really read "few"? india joins 135 other nations as per "http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article365232.ece". considering there are 192 - 195 recognized countries in the world, joining the majority sounds like it has joined the ranks of what should be considered "most of the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.178.101 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I completely agree. In fact it should say "India is the 135th country" because as it stands it sounds a little like "today 135 countries agree to make education a fundamental right and India was one of them". I'm amazed that a so-called democracy had not implemented this earlier. Angry bee (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should clearly indicate that India's adoption is rather late. It is so odd that it is fair that it should be included to show its distinctiveness vis a vis the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.92.16 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Manueljoe (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I've made some edits to this section to neutralise the wording, and bring the information closer to the source material, but I'm unsure about the validity of this as a relevant source. What is contained in the text is a statement from 2001 criticising the (as then proposed) constitutional amendment which would eventually bring this act into being. Could someone informed on Indian current affairs please confirm that this still forms part of the debate? --Adzz (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.indiatogether.org looks like a wiki news site. doesnt look reliable. --CarTick 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infringement on private schools[edit]

"In August 2015, the Allahabad High Court issued a contempt notice to City Montessori School because it had refused to admit 13 students of economically weak backgrounds under the Act." I removed this section citing the later judgement by Supreme Court here. If you will go through the Supreme Court Judgement you will find that it was an interim order and ended with the statement that, 'Having regard to the fact that the Academic Session has already been started, we direct the petitioner school to admit these students forthwith. After notice to the respondents and verifying the position as explained by Mr. Shanti Bushan, if it becomes necessary, directions can always be given to shift those students to other schools.' which is testimony that the 13 children ordered by High Court for admission were, though found ineligible for not fulfilling RTE norms, were still considered ineligible by the apex court and were only allowed admission to the school in question as the academic session had started with a caveat that direction may be given to shift those students to other schools. Therefore, the lines deserve to be removed from the section. Velociraptor2012 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Velociraptor2012: the 13 children ordered by High Court for admission were, though found ineligible for not fulfilling RTE norms, were still considered ineligible by the apex court - Can you please tell me where this has come from? Because the source you provided does not explicitly say this. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyler Durden: After notice to the respondents and verifying the position as explained by Mr. Shanti Bushan, if it becomes necessary, directions can always be given to shift those students to other schools. - Why would the apex court give the option of shifting them to other schools after verifying the position as explained by Mr Shanti Bhushan if the children were found eligible? Regards, Velociraptor2012 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Velociraptor2012: Ah, yes. That means the Hon'ble SC observed that the children were not in the "neighbourhood" of the school, and hence said that they can be shifted to other schools which are in the neighbourhood — which makes the admission into City Montessori School not mandatory as per RTE norms. Sorry that I missed this. Please cut-paste this discussion on the article's talk page, and then you may remove the content from the article, citing this consensus. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyler Durden: Thanks and Regards Velociraptor2012 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right to education Oct 2009 Introduction in history[edit]

In Marathi translation 103.160.28.178 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi[edit]

Mahatma gandhi 49.205.224.12 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this type is very long period for the best work[edit]

I we know how this you have which angle find 2402:8100:30AC:80A2:B32E:A8ED:A882:6E24 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any cast can be applicable for this act[edit]

Can any cast participate in this act 2409:4080:BD92:27E0:2954:5E43:1D6:9AF7 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act,_2009&oldid=1213851373"