Can Right to Education Act apply to madrasas, vedic pathshalas? Supreme Court to examine

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to consider a plea challenging provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) concerning minority schools, madrasas, vedic pathshalas and institutions primarily imparting religious instruction. [Pyare Ziya Khan v. UOI]

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu directed that the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Maharashtra State Minority Commission Chairman Pyare Zia Khan be heard with a pending case concerning the application of the RTE Act and the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions.

In that case, the Supreme Court questioned its 2014 ruling exempting minority schools from the ambit of the RTE Act and sought consideration of the issue by a larger bench.

Khan has challenged Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act as violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 21A of the Constitution.

Section 1(4) provides that the RTE Act will apply subject to Articles 29 and 30, which protect the cultural and educational rights of minorities. Section 1(5) states that the Act will not apply to madrasas, vedic pathshalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious instruction.

The petition has also sought a declaration that the TET, introduced under the RTE Act and notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), is mandatory for teachers in all schools covered by Section 2(n) of the Act.

It argued that the provisions create separate classes of children based solely on the character of the institution in which they study. This classification has no rational connection with the RTE Act’s object of ensuring universal and quality elementary education, the plea contended.

It added that the phrase “primarily imparting religious instruction” has not been defined. According to the plea, the law provides no criteria, threshold or designated authority for deciding whether an institution falls within this exemption.

Khan maintained that prescribing minimum qualifications for teachers would not interfere with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Such institutions would remain free to select and appoint teachers from among candidates who satisfy the prescribed standards, he argued.

The PIL was filed following the Supreme Court’s September 2025 judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, with which the current case is tagged. In that case, the Court questioned the correctness of its 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India.

The Pramati judgment had held that the RTE Act could not be applied to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, as this would violate their rights under Article 30(1).

However, the Bench in the Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust case expressed serious doubts about granting minority institutions a blanket exemption from the entire RTE Act. It noted that even if the admission obligation under Section 12(1)(c) interfered with minority rights, there appeared to be no justification for excluding such institutions from every other protection and standard prescribed by the law.

That Bench consequently asked the Chief Justice of India to consider referring the issue to a larger bench.

Senior Advocate Firdos Mirza and Advocate Shakul Rajesh Ghatole appeared for Khan.

[Read Order]