AAP MP Sanjay Singh has challenged the UP government’s move to shut 105 primary schools, calling it unconstitutional and violative of the RTE Act. The petition cites safety, access, and fundamental rights concerns for marginalised children.
New Delhi: On July 29, Rajya Sabha MP and Aam Aadmi Party national spokesperson Sanjay Singh has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s recent decision to shut down and merge 105 government primary schools with other nearby schools.
The state government took this decision through a Government Order dated June 16, followed by a list released on June 24, identifying the schools selected for closure and pairing.
ALSO READ: Fake Law Degrees | “Initiate Nationwide Verification Of Advocates”: BCI Orders
In his petition, filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat, Singh has called the move unconstitutional, arbitrary, and against the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (commonly known as the RTE Act).
He argued that the policy will directly impact the education of children from marginalised sections, as it forces them to travel long and unsafe distances, violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
According to the petition, many of the affected schools were already functional and served children within their local neighbourhoods.
Shutting them down and merging them with schools that are as far as three kilometres away has created unnecessary hardships for students, especially those from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and children with disabilities.
The plea argues that this closure is not supported by any legal authority and violates Section 6 of the RTE Act, which mandates that a primary school must be available within a one-kilometre radius of any habitation that has a minimum population of 300 people.
Rule 4(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules also reinforces this requirement. Though there is an exception under Rule 4(2) that allows deviation from this rule, it only applies if compensatory measures like transportation or residential facilities are made available.
The petition alleges that the government has not provided any such facilities for the affected children.
Sanjay Singh also highlighted that the decision was taken without any involvement or consultation with School Management Committees (SMCs), which is a mandatory process under Section 21 of the RTE Act.
As per his argument, the decision was implemented in the middle of the academic year without giving public notice, inviting feedback from parents or teachers, or applying any uniform selection criteria for which schools should be closed or merged.
He stated in the petition that this sudden action has led to overcrowded classrooms, lack of basic infrastructure, and increased student dropouts.
Many children are now forced to travel across dangerous terrain like highways, rivers, or forest areas just to attend school, which has created serious safety concerns for both children and parents.
Quoting from the plea, Singh said:
“Many parents have withdrawn their wards from schools due to safety concerns and logistical impossibilities, resulting in de facto denial of access to schools, and pushing children back into labour or ‘domestic work.'”
He also pointed out that the state government has attempted to justify this policy by referring to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and arguing that the move is intended to align with NEP goals by closing schools that have very low student enrolment.
ALSO READ: BCI Seeks Suspension of New Criminal Laws Amid Nationwide Protests
However, Singh has claimed in his petition that this justification does not stand because the move is against the basic principles of the RTE Act and does not meet the necessary legal or procedural standards.
He argued further:
“The Respondents have sought to justify the pairing decision on grounds of policy restructuring and alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, pointing to schools with negligible student strength. However, the impugned action has the effect of denying children access to education within the statutory neighborhood limits and fails to make alternative arrangements as per the mandatory requirements under the Rules.”
Singh added that the closure or merger of schools that were legally established under Section 6 and Rule 4(1)(a) of the RTE Act cannot be undone simply through an executive decision that lacks the backing of any legislation. In the absence of a proper law or rule allowing such actions, any such executive direction is unconstitutional.
He stated:
“The closure or merger of a school, once established under Section 6 read with Rule 4(1)(a), cannot be undertaken on the basis of an executive instruction lacking legislative authority. The Petitioner submits that such executive action is ultra vires the statute and violative Constitution, which prohibits the State from taking actions that infringe fundamental rights.”
The petition also mentions that this policy decision by the Uttar Pradesh government goes against India’s international commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory.
The failure to maintain accessible, safe, and inclusive education violates the basic rights of children, especially those from vulnerable backgrounds.
Singh concluded by pointing out that there was no transparency in the decision-making process.
According to him, the government failed to involve key stakeholders such as parents, teachers, local authorities, and the School Management Committees.
As mentioned in the plea:
“The executive decision was taken without public consultation and without adherence to the statutory role of the School Management Committees as required under the RTE Act.”
Case Title:
Sanjay Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others | Diary No. 41583/2025a
Click Here to Read More Reports On Education
