The Supreme Court held that private unaided schools remain bound to admit children from Weaker Sections and Disadvantaged Groups under the RTE Act, 2009. It clarified that SOPs issued by child rights bodies lack force and cannot substitute rules.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled that private unaided schools must still admit children from Weaker Sections (WS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), regardless of the lack of binding statutory rules.
A Bench consisting of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar determined that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by child rights organizations lack legal authority and cannot replace binding regulations.
The Court observed that relying solely on SOPs for the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act has created significant shortcomings in practice, thereby undermining the right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Consequently, the Court instructed States and Union Territories to develop enforceable rules as outlined in Section 38 of the Act, in collaboration with child rights bodies, to ensure the proper implementation of the 25 percent admission requirement in private unaided schools.
The Court stated,
“These guidelines do not partake the character of enforceable rules, violation of which would render the duty bearers answerable to the reviewing or controlling authority. Uncertainty about the obligation to comply with the requirements would also make judicial review complicated. We are of the opinion that it is necessary and compelling to formulate subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations, prescribing the method and manner by which children of weaker and disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighbourhood schools. Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object of Article 21A and the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) would be a dead letter,”
The case originated from a petition by a parent whose children were denied admission under the 25 percent quota at a local private school in Maharashtra, despite evidence obtained through the Right to Information Act showing available seats.
ALSO READ: MBBS Fee Hike Mid-Session: Allahabad HC Stops Govt & Grants Relief To 240 Students
When the school did not respond, the petitioner sought intervention from the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, asserting that the petitioner had not adhered to the required online admission process and therefore “must blame himself.”
This dismissal came despite a letter from the Primary Education Officer of Gondia Zila Parishad urging the school to admit the children, even without following the online procedure. The court acknowledged that the family was very poor and lived within three kilometers of the school, with RTI responses revealing that 648 seats were unfilled.
After the High Court’s ruling, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. However, by the time the Supreme Court reviewed the appeal, the academic year had elapsed, making individual relief unattainable.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court opted to investigate the matter to prevent similar occurrences in the future. In reviewing the submissions from Amicus Curiae Senthil Jagadeesan, the bench observed that access to admissions under Section 12(1)(c) is often obstructed by the admission process itself.
The judgment highlighted that online-only procedures overlook the challenges of digital illiteracy, while language barriers, a lack of help desks, insufficient transparent information on seat availability, and uncertainty regarding grievance redress mechanisms further exclude eligible families.
The Court emphasized that elementary education is a positive fundamental right that imposes duties on various stakeholders, including governments, local authorities, schools, parents, and teachers.
The judgment stated,
“It is important to recognize that the Constitution declares elementary education as a fundamental right, as against many other liberties, which are in the nature of fundamental freedoms,”
The bench further noted that courts must ensure easy access to remedies in cases where this right is claimed to be denied.
The bench remarked,
“The legislative choice to implement the right to free and compulsory education through neighbourhood schools is not merely administrative; it is a deliberate constitutional strategy to operationalise equality of status, dignity, and social integration among children in their formative years,”
As a result, the Supreme Court instructed the relevant authorities to develop and issue necessary rules and regulations under Section 38 of the Act for the effective execution of the mandate in Section 12(1)(c).
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was also directed to be included as a respondent for compliance and monitoring purposes. The matter will be revisited on April 6.
Case Title: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar vs. State of Maharashtra
Read Attachment: