The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government to cover the full schooling expenses of a Muslim student from Muzaffarnagar who was slapped by classmates on the alleged instructions of his teacher in 2023.

A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear that while the State may coordinate with the school or private donors, the primary obligation to bear costs such as tuition fees, uniforms, books, and transport lies with the government.

“It is the obligation of the State government to pay for tuition fees, cost of uniform, books, etc., and transport charges of the child till he completes his school education,” the Court stated.

The directive came while hearing a petition filed by Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who sought action against schoolteacher Tripta Tyagi for allegedly inciting communal violence against the student. Tyagi is accused of making derogatory religious remarks and instructing classmates to hit the child—a moment captured in a viral video that drew nationwide outrage.

The student has since been shifted to a different school.

Gandhi’s plea also called for an independent and time-bound probe and broader safeguards for minority students facing religious discrimination or violence in schools.

In a previous hearing in October 2023, the UP government informed the Court that Tripta Tyagi would face criminal prosecution under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses deliberate acts intended to outrage religious sentiments. She later surrendered and was granted bail.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Tushar Gandhi, pointed out that despite the Court’s earlier suggestion, the State had not ensured coverage of the child’s tuition or uniform expenses.

“It is embarrassing for them. It’s the State’s responsibility to directly pay the school,” Farasat argued.

The State responded that a private body—the Syed Murtaza Memorial Trust—had come forward to sponsor the child’s education for one year and could file an affidavit to that effect.

However, the Court reiterated that this did not relieve the State of its duty.

“It is recorded that the trust will take care [of the expenses] for one year. We clarify that the primary responsibility of meeting this expenditure is of the State. It will be open to the State to persuade the school authority to make the payment,” the Court observed.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 17.