Supreme Court Play School Sealing hearing: "...won’t mind being called a Khan Market elite" Singhvi

The Supreme Court recently dismissed pleas filed by a group of three children - through their guardians - who were aggrieved against their play school ‘The Learning Tree’ being sealed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) on December 6, 2019 in the midst of their ongoing session..The toddlers, who are between the age of 2 and 4 years, were seeking permission from the Supreme Court to allow them to complete their session, which was to come to an end before March 30..The Learning Tree Play School, which is located in Sujan Singh Park, was sealed pursuant to the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.Subsequently, the play school being aggrieved by the sealing, filed two applications before the Apex Court, praying for de-sealing the play school..The petition filed by the children as well as the applications filed by the play school were listed for hearing on Friday before a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta..The children were represented by Senior Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was briefed by Advocate Shravanth Shanker. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, briefed by Advocates Sumeet Lall, Nikhil Parikshith, Anuj Sarma and Sidhant Kapoor, represented the play school..The play school was sealed mainly for the reason that by virtue of paragraph 15.1(v) of Chapter 15 of the MPD-2021, mixed use is not permitted in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone. Accordingly, as running of pre-schools from residential areas falls under the category of mixed use, Learning Tree Play School, which was running from a residential premises, came to be sealed..Apart from challenging the vires of Paragraph 15.1(v) of Chapter 15 of the MPD-2021, the pleas also sought to protect the rights of children between the age of 2 and 4 years to attend pre-schools, which is necessary for the personality development of the children at an early age..“Mr. Manoj Tiwari, we will make you Sealing Officer” Supreme Court.In his submissions, Sankaranarayanan argued that sealing of the play school violated the fundamental rights of the children as they were left with no alternative of having a play school/pre-school within a distance of 1 km from their residences. It was highlighted that no other play school exists in the entire Lutyens Bungalow Zone..Sankaranarayanan further submitted that MPD-2021 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since play schools/pre-schools are permitted to operate in residential areas across Delhi, with Lutyens Bungalow Zone being the only exception. The importance of such play schools vis-à-vis the Right to Education Act was also highlighted..In response to the submissions, the Bench, however, remarked,.“Children of the age of this age group are expected to remain at home and be taken care of by their parents."Supreme Court.The basic case of the play school, as canvassed by Singhvi, was that it was operating from the same premises for around 25 years and that it did not violate any environmental norms. It was submitted by Dr Singhvi that the play school charged meagre fees and is also open to children from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society..Singhvi further drew a comparison between the position of the play school and the first floors of the adjoining Khan Market area, wherein commercial activities are carried out, despite the first floors having been earmarked for residential purposes..Justice Mishra, on a lighter note, referred to Singhvi as being a “Khan Market Elite”, to which Dr Singhvi responded,..Singhvi tried to convince the Bench with photographs of the play school to project that the play school did not violate any environmental norms. The Bench, however, expressed its disinclination towards affording any relief to the children and the play school. The plea for having the play school de-sealed until the end of the present session was also rejected..Lastly, the Bench expressed its disinclination towards interfering with the sealing of the play school on the premise that, once a particular law is in place, it was not appropriate to make a distinction for the play school. The Bench also refused to go into the vires of Paragraph 15.1(v) of Chapter 15 of the MPD-2021..Accordingly, the applications, as well as the writ petition, came to be dismissed..While parting Justice Mishra thereafter, had another remark for Dr Singhvi, when Justice Mishra said “Do you want to hear something good about you? I have some good words for you”. To this Dr Singhvi answered that this will be an honour for him, however Justice Mishra responded by remarking “But if I use good words for you then the people around would blame me”..Sinister trend of campaigning for judgments on social media: Law Minister RS Prasad at inauguration of International Judicial Conference