Supreme Court Today (June 2) asked the petitioner to first approach the High Court in the case concerning Rule 7(4) of Punjab’s RTE Rules. The petitioner raised concerns that nearly 3 lakh students from EWS and DG categories were being denied their rightful admissions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court refused to hear a PIL filed under Article 32 regarding denial of admissions to EWS students and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court first.
The case challenged a Punjab RTE rule that allegedly violated children’s right to free education.
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by the K.S. Raju Legal Trust under Article 32 along with Article 142 of the Constitution. The PIL challenged Rule 7(4) of the Punjab Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, which the petitioner claimed went against Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
The main concern was that this rule was stopping Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) students from getting admission to private unaided schools.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case.
Court:
“Why don’t you approach the High Court?”
Here, the Bench was asking why the petitioner had not gone to the Punjab High Court first instead of directly coming to the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner-in-Person replied honestly:
Petitioner-in-Person:
“Sir, because I came directly to this Court.”
He admitted that he had approached the top court first without trying the High Court. But this answer made the court raise a concern.
Court:
“So there is an element of contempt in this petition.”
By saying this, the court was hinting that the way the petition was filed might show disrespect to the proper legal procedure, which is to first approach the High Court.
The petitioner quickly clarified his intention:
Petitioner-in-Person:
“Sir, it’s not a contempt. This is a writ petition. Sir, I am seeking relief under Article 32 read with Article 142.”
He explained that this was not meant as contempt and he had filed a writ petition under Article 32, which allows people to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights, and he also mentioned Article 142, which gives the Court special powers to pass any order for complete justice.
The court continued the discussion and gave another suggestion:
COURT:
“If you think there’s an element of contempt, then you prepare a contempt petition on this.”
Here, the Court was being firm. It told the petitioner that if he truly believed there was contempt involved, he should file a separate contempt petition instead of mixing it with the current one.
The petitioner then explained the seriousness of the issue:
Petitioner-in-Person:
“Sir, there are more than one issue. That’s why I cited Art. 32 r/w 142. Actually 3 lakh students are not getting admissions.”
He said there were multiple issues involved and stressed that around 3 lakh students were being denied school admissions, which is a big problem under the Right to Education law.
The court, focusing on accuracy, immediately asked:
Bench:
“3 lakh or 5 lakh? Precision matters in SC.”
This shows that in the Supreme Court, being exact with facts is very important. The Bench wanted a clear and correct number, not just an estimate.
The Bench then gave an important direction:
Bench passed order:
“There is a jurisdictional High Court. You approached them for one grievance — why not for the other?”
Here, the Court said that since the petitioner had already approached the High Court once for a similar issue, he should have also gone there for this complaint instead of coming straight to the Supreme Court.
Trying once again, the petitioner said:
Petitioner:
“Sir, my humble submission is…”
But before he could finish, the Court made it clear:
Court:
“This is not in person. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.”
This meant that the Court was not willing to continue hearing this case and did not find it appropriate to take it up directly.
ALSO READ: Women Protesters Write to CJI : ‘Please Protect Our Right to Live’
Still, the petitioner respectfully made a final request:
Petitioner-in-Person:
“Then may I be allowed to go to the High Court? Please mention that in the order.”
He asked for permission to go to the High Court and also requested the Court to record this in its final order.
The Bench agreed and passed the official order:
Order:
“We dispose of the writ petition, relegating him to approach the jurisdictional High Court. In the event a proper petition is preferred, it shall be considered on its own merit.”
The Supreme Court disposed of the case and said the petitioner was free to approach the Punjab High Court. The Court also added that if the petitioner filed a proper petition there, it would be considered seriously based on its own merits.
What Was the Case About?
The issue was related to Rule 7(4) of Punjab’s RTE Rules. This rule said that EWS/DG students must first try to get admission in government or aided schools before they can get their 25% reserved seats in private unaided schools.
According to the K.S. Raju Legal Trust, this rule was against Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act and violated Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education for all children.
The petitioner argued that this technical rule was stopping lakhs of poor children from accessing quality education in private schools, which they are legally entitled to under the RTE Act.
Background and Final Outcome
Earlier, the Punjab High Court had already looked into this issue and agreed that Rule 7(4) was not in line with the Central RTE Act. The High Court told the Punjab Government to make the necessary changes.
Following this, the Punjab Government amended the rules and deleted Rule 7(4) from the RTE Rules. Because of this change, the main issue raised in the PIL was already resolved, and that made the petition no longer necessary in the eyes of the Court.
CASE TITLE:
K.S. RAJU LEGAL TRUST PETITIONER-IN-PERSON vs STATE OF PUNJAB
IA No. 138397/2025
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Student Admissions
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
