Drag to rotate · toggles change the building live
Repair Console
Repair cracked roof & wallsStructural retrofit — ends the "unsafe building" finding
Build proper toiletsSeparate girls' & boys' units — RTE Act norm
Safe drinking waterHandpump + storage tank on campus
Boundary wall & rampChild safety + barrier-free access
10%
RTE compliance
0
of 62 kids kept in school
Unsafe & non-compliant — but closure would strand every child in the village.
The Legal CoreWhy courts say "repair, not close"
Under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009, every child aged 6–14 is guaranteed free schooling in a neighbourhood school — the RTE norms place a primary school within about 1 km of a child's home.
- Closing a village's only school forces long, often unsafe commutes — and drop-out rates spike, especially for girls.
- The RTE Act's Schedule already mandates all-weather buildings, separate toilets for girls and boys, and drinking water. An unsafe building is a state failure to meet norms, not grounds to withdraw the service.
- So the MP High Court's logic: the remedy for a broken guarantee is to fix the guarantee — repair the building — not to eliminate it.
The EconomicsRepair is usually the cheap option
Illustrative numbers for a 2-room rural primary school (based on typical Samagra Shiksha-era unit costs):
| Option | Approx. cost | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Roof + wall retrofit | ₹3–5 lakh | Building safe for 15+ yrs |
| Toilet block (2 units) | ₹2–3 lakh | RTE-compliant sanitation |
| Water + boundary + ramp | ₹1.5–2 lakh | Full norm compliance |
| Total repair path | ≈ ₹8 lakh once | 62 kids stay in school |
| Closure + daily transport | ₹4–6 lakh/yr, forever | Drop-outs likely anyway |
A one-time repair roughly equal to one or two years of transport costs keeps the school alive permanently. Flip all four toggles above to watch compliance — and enrolment — recover.