The Supreme Court has criticised the affidavit of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) on the implementation of the 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act as unsatisfactory, and has directed the NCPCR’s Chairperson and Director to be physically present at the next hearing.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for what it called an indifferent response in the matter on implementing the 25% quota for economically weaker students in private schools, and directed the NCPCR’s Chairperson and Director to be physically present at the next hearing [Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra].
A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the matter on the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which requires private unaided schools to admit students from economically weaker sections to 25% of their strength and to educate them free of cost. The remarks were made at the hearing, and LawChakra’s account is based on reports of the hearing.
The background
In January 2026, the Court issued a series of directions to ensure that 25% of seats are reserved for economically weaker students, observing that the concept of neighbourhood schools is meant to break barriers of class, caste and gender. The NCPCR was added as a party to monitor the implementation of the RTE Act, for which a Standard of Procedure (SoP) already exists.
The hearing
The Bench went through the NCPCR’s affidavit and found it unsatisfactory. Addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the NCPCR, Justice Narasimha said that the NCPCR has a very big role in implementing the quota, and that it is a statutory authority and a regulatory body under the RTE Act. He said that whoever heads it should be sensitised to how much hope and trust has been placed on it, and that the purpose of Section 12 of the Act and the idea of neighbourhood schools have to be made a reality.
Asking “How can they act so indifferent?”, he added that the Court would ask the head of the NCPCR to be present. He said this was not a contempt, and not a question of collating information, and that the NCPCR would have to address the purpose of Section 12 and see that every neighbourhood school implements the concept.
The direction
The Court directed the Chairperson and the Director of the NCPCR to be physically present at the next hearing on the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c). The next hearing date was not reported.
Why it matters
The Court has made the NCPCR, and not only the States, answerable for how the 25% quota works on the ground. By calling its top officials in person, it has signalled that monitoring the quota under the RTE Act is expected to go beyond filing affidavits.
The Court did not initiate any contempt action, and its remarks are directions and observations at a hearing. The Commission’s response to the criticism will be known only when it appears before the Court.
Case Title: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra [SLP(C) No. 10105 of 2017]
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the NCPCR.