Strange and unexpected things do happen. At a time when the home of a young Muslim boy in Ujjain was bulldozed, and he was given bail after more than a 100 days of imprisonment for ‘allegedly’ spitting or throwing water at a religious procession, an accusation that was later withdrawn by the complainant, a bench of the Supreme Court had given much time and thought to the trauma of a seven-year-old Muslim boy whose class teacher, Tripta Tyagi forced his Hindu friend to beat him.

On January 12, Justice Abhay Oka, heading the bench, admonished Uttar Pradesh’s Additional advocate-general, Garima Prashad, saying “All this happened because the state did not do what it was expected to do. The state should be very concerned about the manner in which the whole thing happened”

The way in which the UP government has behaved since this incident occurred on August 24, 2023, it is highly unlikely that it feels any concern. On that day, a cousin of the child had been asked by Tyagi to undertake some repairs in the school.

He was standing outside the classroom when he saw his young cousin being slapped by another child. He immediately used his phone to record what was happening and the video soon went viral. Tyagi had used very communal language and angrily insisted that the child be hit hard.

The sad fact that a classroom for very young children had been converted into a site for communal hatred prompted CPI-M Rajya Sabha member, John Brittas and myself to visit the child’s family in their village in UP’s Muzaffarnagar district on August 30, 2023. The family owns a small plot of land and the boy’s father also does some odd jobs.

He and his wife have three sons, the youngest of whom was the victim of his teacher’s viciousness. He was very quiet and his parents told us that he hardly spoke after the incident.

The father told us that when the child came home from school that day and when they heard about what had happened, he went to meet Tyagi. She was not at all sorry for what she had done, recalled the father.

After the father returned home, the boy’s mother went to meet the teacher. They were shocked by the teacher’s behaviour and wanted to know the reason behind it, since they had known her for many years. Tyagi gave the mother a cold reception and showed no remorse.

After this, the boy’s father decided to lodge a complaint with the local police. He told us that this application had not been converted into a First Information Report (FIR) but the one-room, unregistered school had been closed.

The UP government had later informed the SC that the FIR had been registered the day after the incident. However, the boy’s family seemed to have been kept in the dark. In fact, they were informed, the day after our visit, that the FIR had been registered.

No one from any political party or social organisation had visited the family before us and, therefore, our visit was welcomed by the child’s extended family and many others in the village. They were amazed that an MP from Kerala had come.

One of them told us that many young men from the village and other villages in the area visit Kerala regularly to sell cloth and do odd jobs there. They come back and share many stories about Kerala, its red flags and its atmosphere of amity and friendship.

We assured the family that we would take care of the child’s education and help them in every way that we could.

Subsequently, Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson, approached the Supreme Court in early September seeking its intervention in the matter to ensure justice for the little boy and his family.

On September 6, the Supreme Court sought a status report from the Muzaffarnagar Superintendent of Police on the investigation into the alleged slapping of a student by his classmates on the teacher’s instructions. The SC also asked about the measures adopted by the administration to protect the student and his parents.

The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, also issued notice to the UP Government seeking its reply on these issues.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Right also took note of the video and asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to lodge a case against the teacher and also sought responses from the District Magistrate and the SP concerned.

On September 25, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government and police for their handling of the Muzaffarnagar case, and cited the delay in the registering of the FIR and the lack of reference to allegations of communal hatred in it.

Justice Oka said in court “We take serious objections to the way the FIR was filed. The father had made a statement saying allegations were made and he was beaten due to religion. But this is not mentioned in the FIR.

“Next, where is the video transcript? This is about quality education. Quality education includes sensitive education. The manner in which it has happened should shake the conscience of the State.”

The Additional Solicitor General, K. M. Nataraj, representing the UP Government, claimed that the communal angle had been “blown out of proportion” and added that “Something is there.” Justice Oka responded to this saying “Not just something, it is very serious. The teacher gave the mandate to beat the child because of his religion. What kind of education is being imparted?”

The court also said there was “prima facie failure on the part of the State” to comply with the mandate of the Right to Education Act that prohibits the mental and physical harassment of students and charged the UP Government to counsel the two children, punish the teacher and ensure that the child’s educational needs are met.

The next day, on September 26, I spoke to the child’s father who said that no one from the State Government had visited them, and no one other than us had given any help. The little boy was still very nervous and too scared to go to the school in which they had admitted him.

Meanwhile the teacher had made an initial statement saying that she was ashamed of what she had done, and also put out a video again asking for forgiveness and denying any communal intent. Subsequently, Tyagi was hailed as a heroine by the Sangh Parivar and its media voices.

Later, the UP police and administrative representatives did visit the family and got the child admitted into a fairly satisfactory school in the district headquarters and promised to send him and bring him back by car everyday.

Fortunately, the child settled down in the new school. After a few days, the car was withdrawn and the family was given Rs 3000 rupees a month for transport expenses. The boy is now taken on a two wheeler to and from the school which is located over 20 kilometres away.

It’s tough on the father who has to attend to his land and work, but he says that they will do whatever is necessary to give the child a decent education.

In October, the UP government informed the SC that the school teacher may face charges under Section 295A of the IPC, but did not actually see that this was done. It also did not arrange for the counselling that the Court had ordered.

The Court has now decided to hold a further hearing on February 9. The way in which this SC bench is expressing its concern over the trauma suffered by a small child subjected to an act of communal prejudice on the instigation of his own teacher is extremely commendable at a time when UP is witnessing attacks of every kind on people belonging to religious minorities who are denied any kind of justice.

One example of this was seen in a village school in Sambhal district on September 28. It is a mirror image of what happened in Muzaffarnagar but with a very different outcome.

Here, the teacher Shaista asked a Muslim student to slap a Hindu student who did not answer a question correctly. The father of the boy lodged a complaint at the police station and Shaista was immediately arrested.

The complainant went back to the police and said that they had gone too far and that he wanted to withdraw his complaint but, by that time, Shaista had been sent to jail. Fortunately, others intervened on her behalf and she was released on bail very soon.

No one in the school has any complaints about her and the principal said that she belonged to a poor family and had worked there for seven years. Unfortunately, Shaista has been so shamed by this incident that she has refused to go back to the school despite many requests.

She is being counselled to return to work. Tyagi, on the other hand, has re-opened her school (still unregistered) in Muzaffarnagar and is basking in the praise being bestowed upon her by the Sangh Parivar.

Perhaps it is too much to ask of the Supreme Court to take note of the communal bias displayed by the State and all its agencies in UP. The fact that it has spent time and effort to try and undo the trauma suffered by one insignificant little boy is the most that we can hope for.

Meanwhile, I visited the family on December 12, and the little boy greeted me with a smile and showed off the new clothes that he was wearing. He said he was happy in school and had made three friends. Amazing things can be made to happen, sometimes.

Subhashini Ali is a senior Politburo member of the CPI(M). Views expressed are the writer’s own.

Latest News