States must frame binding rules to implement 25% RTE quota in private schools: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the obligation of private unaided schools to admit children from Weaker Sections (WS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) cannot be rendered ineffective due to the absence of binding statutory rules [Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar vs. State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar ruled that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by child rights bodies do not have the force of law and cannot substitute binding rules.

The implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act through SOPs alone has resulted in serious gaps on the ground thereby, defeating the purpose of the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

Thus, the Court directed States and Union Territories to frame enforceable rules under Section 38 of the Act in consultation with child rights bodies to ensure effective implementation of the 25 percent admission mandate in private unaided schools.

“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 Court said.

The case arose from a petition filed by a parent whose children were denied admission under the 25 percent quota in a neighbourhood private school in Maharashtra, despite information obtained under the Right to Information Act showing that seats were available.

After the school failed to respond, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner had failed to follow the prescribed online admission procedure and therefore, "must blame himself”.

This was notwithstanding a letter issued by the Primary Education Officer of Gondia Zila Parishad, requesting that the children be admitted even though the online procedure had not been followed.

The was after noting that the family was extremely poor and lived within three kilometres of the school. RTI replies placed on record also indicated that 648 seats were lying vacant.

After the High Court dismissed the plea, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

By the time the appeal was taken up by the Supreme Court, the academic years had passed, making individual relief impossible.

The apex court nevertheless decided to examine the issue in order to prevent recurrence of similar situations.

After examining the submissions by Amicus Curiae Senthil Jagadeesan, the bench stated that access to admissions under Section 12(1)(c) is often impeded by the design of the admission process itself.

The judgment notes that online-only procedures ignore digital illiteracy, while language barriers, lack of help-desks, absence of transparent information on seat availability and uncertainty over grievance redress mechanisms further exclude eligible families.

The Court underscored that elementary education is a positive fundamental right that creates corresponding duties on multiple stakeholders, including governments, local authorities, schools, parents and teachers.

“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 judgment said.

The bench added that courts themselves must ensure easy access to remedies where denial of this right is alleged.

“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," the bench stated.

Thus, the top court directed appropriate authorities to prepare and issue necessary rules and regulations under Section 38 of the Act for implementing the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was directed to be impleaded as a respondent for the purpose of compliance and monitoring.

The matter will be taken up next on April 6.

[Read Judgment]