Right To Education Act | Ensure Admission Of Poor Students For Free Education In Private Schools : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today(January 13) interpreted Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, to state that appropriate State governments and local authorities are obligated to ensure that there is no denial of admissions in the neighbourhood schools to students belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society.

It also said that the neighbourhood schools are equally obligated to ensure that they admit such students to the extent of 25% as mandated in the RTE Act, read with Article 21A(right to education) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court has issued a slew of directions and has kept the matter pending for compliance. It has also impleaded the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as a party and has asked it to file an affidavit.

As per Section 12(1)(c), private unaided institutions and special category schools shall provide free and compulsory education to at least 25% children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections admitted to class I or pre-primary classes. Such schools would be entitled to reimbursement at the per-child cost incurred by the Government.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar said:

"The obligation of neighbourhood schools to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society to the extent of 25% of the class strength under Section 12 of the Act has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of the society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India but also a substantive measure in securing a preamblur objective of equality of status. Constitutional declaration for right under Article 21A followed by the mandate under Section 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 can only be realised with effective implementation of the provisions."

Justice Narasimha added that the Court has also held that "ensuring admissions of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate governments and the local authorities equally. The Courts be, constitutional or civil, must walk the extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the right".

The special leave petition challenges the Bombay High Court's order dated December 20, 2016, in a writ petition, whereby the petitioner sought a direction to admit his kids in the 25% quota for free education. The High Court bench comprising Justice Vasanti A Naik and Swapna Joshi had observed that when the admission was undertaken online, the petitioner did not apply for this quota.

The High Court said that it is the petitioner who is to be blamed for failing to take appropriate steps. "There would be several persons like the petitioner who would be below the poverty line but who may for the reasons best known to them, have not applied for admission of their kids in the 25% quota for free education. If the petitioner had failed to take appropriate steps to admit his kids in the free education quota, the petitioner should blame himself."

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that if the relief is granted to the petitioner, the Court will have to grant such relief in favour of several others who would approach the Court.

Story to be updated after the judgment is uploaded.

Case Details: DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017