The Delhi High Court has clarified that a school cannot refuse to issue a transfer certificate to a child solely because of a matrimonial or guardianship dispute between the parents. Emphasizing the best interests of the child, the court warned that any delay in issuing the certificate could even lead to disciplinary action against the school's headmaster or in-charge.
Read also: Delhi High Court Clarifies 'Constructive Res Judicata' Also Applies To Writ Petitions
In a significant observation, Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court stated, “...the school cannot deny the issuance of Transfer Certificate (TC) to the child who has sought admission in another school. In the event of delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Head-Master or In-Charge of the school. Needless to say that in a matrimonial or guardianship dispute, it is the interest of the child which is of paramount consideration.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by a minor through her mother, seeking a direction to the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Government and Montfort School to provide her with a transfer certificate. The case arose after the minor, who was residing with her mother in Gurugram following her parents' separation in April last year, sought admission to another school. Despite the change in residence, Montfort School refused to issue the transfer certificate, citing objections from the child’s father.
Read also: Delhi High Court Rejects Judiciary Aspirant’s Plea Over Answer Key Error, Cites Past Precedent
The father's objection was based on a letter he had sent to the school, requesting them not to issue the certificate. However, it was highlighted before the court that although a guardianship dispute between the parents was ongoing in the Family Court, there was no judicial order prohibiting the issuance of the transfer certificate by Montfort School.
After reviewing the matter, the Delhi High Court directed Montfort School to issue the transfer certificate to the minor child within one week. The court further clarified that if the school was dissatisfied with the order, it had the liberty to file an application for the revival of the case.
“However, in case the respondent no.2/School feels aggrieved with the present order, it shall be at liberty to file an application to seek revival of the present petition,” the court added.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the welfare of the child remains the primary consideration in cases involving parental disputes, and schools cannot become instruments for one parent to create obstacles for the other under the pretext of ongoing litigation.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Mr. Nitin Saroha, Ms. Charu Modi, Ms. Sukriti Seth, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Kriti Dang and Ms. Shanya Shukla, Advs
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs. for R-1/DOE; Mr. R.D. Singh and Mr. Prateek Jindal, Advs. for R-3
Title: SAISHA CHHILLAR MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. JYOTI CHHILLAR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS
