Who Authorised CJP to Inspect Assam’s Government Schools?

A government school is among the most visible expressions of the State in the everyday life of an ordinary family. Its classrooms are built with public money, its teachers are appointed through public institutions and its students are entrusted to an education system whose ultimate purpose is to expand opportunity. For that very reason, the condition of government schools deserves continuous public attention. Parents have every right to raise concerns, communities can identify deficiencies and citizens can question the functioning of institutions sustained by public resources. Yet there is a distinction in a democracy that should never be allowed to disappear in the language of political activism: the right to question a public institution is not the same as the statutory authority to inspect it.

This distinction has acquired particular relevance in Assam following the announcement by CJP co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka that the organisation would take its “School Thik Karo” campaign into the state. CJP has undertaken similar activities elsewhere, presenting visits to government schools as an exercise to identify deficiencies in infrastructure and basic facilities. Its campaign has been publicly described in terms of school “audits” and “inspections”. There is nothing objectionable in principle about drawing attention to genuine shortcomings in public education. The question is more precise and more important: does a political organisation, by calling its activity an inspection, acquire the authority of an official inspection?

The answer lies in the institutional framework governing education in Assam. The Directorate of Elementary Education expressly identifies inspection and supervision of schools among its functions. The Assam Right to Education Rules provide for the Director as the apex authority for coordinating supervision and inspection of schools under his control and provide for authorised education officials to undertake such responsibilities. Official inspection is therefore part of an established administrative structure. It carries defined responsibilities, procedures and consequences. A political organisation does not acquire the same authority merely because it wishes to examine a school or describes its exercise as an “audit”.

This does not mean that government schools should be insulated from public scrutiny. Quite the opposite is true. A government school is a public institution and its performance matters to parents, communities and taxpayers. If a citizen observes a shortage of drinking water, poor sanitation, inadequate infrastructure or another genuine deficiency, that concern deserves to be heard. A civil-society organisation can document a problem and place it before the authorities. A political party can raise an issue in the public domain and demand corrective action. Such participation is part of a healthy democracy. But raising a concern and exercising official inspection powers remain two different functions.

The distinction is not merely semantic. An official inspection normally forms part of a chain of administrative accountability. The inspecting authority works within prescribed rules, may examine relevant records, assesses compliance with applicable standards, communicates deficiencies and reports through the competent administrative structure. Its findings can lead to action by the authorities responsible for the institution. An unofficial assessment, however sincere its intention, does not automatically acquire these characteristics. It may draw attention to an issue, but the issue still requires verification by the authority responsible for determining what actually happened and what action is warranted.

There is an additional consideration that makes this issue particularly sensitive in schools: children are present. A government school cannot be treated as though it were an ordinary administrative office open to unrestricted political activity. Students are minors whose privacy, dignity and safety require particular protection. Any outside visit involving photography, videography, interviews, interaction with children or access to school records must therefore be approached with appropriate safeguards. The purpose of improving education cannot justify treating children as instruments of a political campaign. A serious public-interest intervention must place the welfare of students above the publicity surrounding the intervention.

The experience of CJP’s school campaign in other states illustrates why this distinction deserves attention. In Rajasthan, its school visits generated controversy over access to government school premises and photography or videography involving students and teachers. The resulting administrative response reflected concerns relating to the safety, privacy and dignity of children and the need for appropriate permissions governing outsiders’ activities within schools. Whatever the political interpretations surrounding those events, the institutional principle is clear: public ownership of a school does not mean unrestricted access to the school premises.

Assam can approach the issue in a constructive manner. If CJP members or any other organisation visit a government school and identify a genuine deficiency, there is no reason why that information cannot be brought to the notice of the competent education authorities. The authorities can independently verify the allegation. If the deficiency is established, appropriate corrective action can follow. If the allegation is inaccurate, incomplete or based on a misunderstanding, official verification can establish that as well. This process converts public observation into accountable administrative action without creating a parallel inspection system.

Indeed, if an organisation wishes to call its exercise a “school audit”, transparency about methodology becomes essential. Which schools were selected? What criteria were used? Were the school authorities consulted? Were official records examined? Were the observations compared with prescribed standards? Were teachers and administrators given an opportunity to explain the circumstances? Were photographs or videos involving children obtained and used in accordance with applicable safeguards? And, most importantly, were the findings independently verified before being presented as evidence of systemic failure? These questions are not intended to prevent scrutiny. They are necessary if scrutiny is to be credible.

There is also an important responsibility on the government. The existence of an official inspection mechanism should never become a reason to disregard information coming from parents, citizens or civil-society organisations. A responsive administration should welcome credible information, verify it and act wherever necessary. Assam’s established education machinery is therefore not weakened by responsible citizen scrutiny; it can actually be strengthened by it. But strengthening the system is different from replacing it. The authority to conduct an official inspection must remain with those empowered by the applicable administrative and legal framework.

This is where the language of the CJP campaign deserves particular scrutiny. Calling an exercise an “inspection” can create an impression that the persons conducting it possess official powers or that their conclusions represent departmental findings. If the activity is actually political advocacy or citizen observation, it would be more transparent to describe it as such. There is nothing undemocratic about a political organisation raising concerns about education. What requires clarity is the institutional status of the activity and the authority behind its conclusions.

The broader issue is therefore not whether CJP should be permitted to care about government schools. Any organisation and every citizen can care about the quality of education. The issue is whether concern can be converted into official authority by political assertion. It cannot. A political organisation can question, campaign, document and demand. The authority to conduct an official inspection belongs to the competent education administration under the applicable rules.

Assam already possesses institutions responsible for supervising its schools. It has education officers, administrative structures and established procedures for monitoring the functioning of government schools. The more constructive course is to strengthen those mechanisms, ensure that complaints reach the appropriate authorities and make the process of verification and corrective action increasingly responsive. This allows citizens to participate without creating competing centres of authority and allows the government to remain accountable without surrendering the institutional discipline necessary for effective administration.

The purpose of public scrutiny should ultimately be improvement, not political ownership of the issue. If a school has a genuine deficiency, it should be identified. If an allegation is made, it should be verified. If a problem is established, it should be corrected. The credit should matter less than the outcome.

Government schools belong to the public in the sense that they are created and maintained for public benefit. But they are administered through institutions entrusted with specific responsibilities, and they serve children whose welfare must remain paramount. The right to ask questions belongs to everyone; the authority to conduct an official inspection belongs to those empowered by law and administration. Keeping that distinction clear does not weaken democracy. It strengthens responsible governance.

For Assam, that is the principle worth defending as the debate over school inspections enters a new phase. Political activism has its legitimate place, citizen vigilance has its legitimate place and government administration has its legitimate place. The strongest education system is one in which these roles reinforce one another without being confused. The ultimate measure of success should not be who inspected the school, who exposed the problem or who claimed the political credit. It should be whether the child inside the classroom receives a safer, better and more effective education.