RTE Act Envisages Children Of Judges & Street Vendors Studying Together; Advances Fraternity & Equality: Supreme Court
Common schooling breaks down barriers of caste, class and gender, and thereby advances substantive equality and social justice, the Court noted.
The Supreme Court has held that effective implementation of the 25 percent admission mandate for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections in neighbourhood unaided schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has the potential to transform India's social structure and must be treated as a national mission.The Court said that the statutory mandate...
The Supreme Court has held that effective implementation of the 25 percent admission mandate for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections in neighbourhood unaided schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has the potential to transform India's social structure and must be treated as a national mission.
The Court said that the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the RTE Act is normatively ambitious in the sense that it envisages a common school system whereby all children, irrespective of their class, caste and gender, would attend the same neighbourhood school and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated environment.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chadurkar observed :
"Properly understood, this statutory design is normatively ambitious. It envisages elementary education for all children, across the spectrum of class, caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional space.It makes it possible, normatively and structurally, for the child of a multi-millionaire or even of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India to sit in the same classroom and at the same bench as the child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor. This is the manner in which Section 12 seeks to concretise the constitutional principle of fraternity alongside equality and liberty."
It added that such a system is central to the project of democratising schooling and reducing entrenched social inequalities.
"The emphasis on “neighbourhood schools” is rooted in the National System of Education, as elaborated in the Kothari Commission Report, which recommended a Common School System whereby all children, irrespective of social or economic background, would attend the same neighbourhood schools and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated environment. This model envisages the school as a common civic space that breaks down barriers of caste, class and gender, and thereby advances substantive equality and social justice."
In this case, the Court issued directions for the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c), which mandates that private unaided institutions and special category schools shall admit to Class 1 at least 25% of their strength students from economically weaker sections and provide them free education till the elementary stage. Such schools would be entitled to reimbursement at the per-child cost incurred by the Government. The Court will also be monitoring the implementation of its directions.
Background
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 Justice 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.
The Supreme Court noted that individual relief in this case has become infructuous as eight years have gone by. However, the Court chose to examine the larger issue relating to the enforcement of RTE Act.
"In order to ensure that this situation shall not revisit parents like the petitioner again and again, we considered it appropriate to take up the case for precedent making and decided to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures for complying with the mandate of Section 12," the Court said.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026.
Headnote
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 12(1)(c) – Admission of children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups – Constitutional Mandate and Fraternity – The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) - Noted that the 25% reservation in unaided neighbourhood schools is a deliberate constitutional strategy to operationalize equality of status and social integration - It seeks to concretize the principle of fraternity by creating shared institutional spaces where children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds can form solidaristic bonds and "lose suspect identities" based on caste or class. [Paras 7–10]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 12(1)(c) – Implementation Hurdles – Digital Literacy and Transparency – Supreme Court noted significant barriers to accessing the 25% quota, including digital illiteracy regarding online application processes, language barriers, and a lack of information on seat availability - Noted that despite RTI information showing vacant seats, eligible children are often turned away due to procedural technicalities. [Paras 5-7]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 38 – Direction to Frame Rules –Finding that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the NCPCR are merely guidelines and lack the character of enforceable rules, Supreme Court directed "appropriate authorities" to prepare and issue necessary rules and regulations under Section 38 of the Act - Such subordinate legislation must prescribe the specific method and manner for admissions under Section 12(1)(c) to ensure the statutory policy does not remain a "dead letter." [Paras 15–16]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Five Duty Bearers – Supreme Court identified five core duty bearers responsible for the realization of the right to education: (i) the appropriate government, (ii) local authority, (iii) neighbourhood schools, (iv) parents/guardians, and (v) primary school teachers. [Para 6, 15]
Case Details: DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45