'Neighbourhood School' Under RTE Act Cannot Be Rigidly Distance-Based: Kerala HC Dismisses Challenge To School Shifting In Lakshadweep

Justice N. Nagaresh was delivering the judgment in two writ petitions filed by minor students from Agatti and Andrott Islands in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, who had challenged administrative orders shifting and merging Junior Basic Schools.

The petitioners argued that the impugned orders effectively deprived children of their statutory right to a neighbourhood school and thereby infringed Articles 14, 21 and 21A of the Constitution.

The petitioners have submitted that Section 6 of the Act casts a duty on the appropriate Government to establish School in a neighbourhood area and the closure of an existing school situated in a particular neighbourhood area and the proposed merger is unsustainable in light of the provisions of the RTE Act.

Section 6 of RTE Act casts a duty on the appropriate government and local authority to establish school within such area or limits of “neighborhood”.

The petitioners contended that for Classes I to V, a school must exist within a walking distance of one kilometre from every point in a neighbourhood. According to them, closure or relocation of the existing schools would compel children to travel beyond this limit, defeating the object of the Act.

The Court noted that the term “neighbourhood” is not defined in the RTE Act nor the Central Rules. It further noted that the Kerala RTE Rules, 2011 defines the term “neighbourhood” to mean “the area near or within a walkable distance of an elementary school referred to in sub clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act and shall include areas of such Schools in adjacent local bodies”.

The Court observed that the Kerala Rules, 2011 is not applicable in respect of Schools situated in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and it is the Central Rules that are applicable.

The Court further observed that the legislative silence with regard to the definition of "neighbourhood" in the Central Act and Rules was deliberate, as India's diverse geography makes it impractical to impose a uniform, mathematically precise definition.

The Court contrasted the Central Rules with State-specific RTE Rules in Kerala, Mizoram, Tripura and Madhya Pradesh, each of which defines “neighbourhood” differently based on local needs.

The Court noted that the expression “neighbourhood” refers broadly to locality and accessibility, not to an inflexible radial distance measured from every residence.

“The term “neighbourhood” therefore cannot be defined with clinical precision or mathematical exactitude, for the purpose of the RTE Act. The Union Legislature rightly left it to be decided by appropriate State Governments / Union Territories. The term “neighbourhood” only refers to the locality.” Court noted.

The Court took judicial notice of the unique geographical features of Lakshadweep islands. Andrott Island spans only 4.66 kilometres in length and already hosts six primary schools, while Agatti Island, with a population of under 8,000 would continue to have three schools even after the proposed shifting.

The Court held that, in such compact island territories, the existence of multiple schools within short distances satisfies the mandate of Section 6, even if some students may have to travel slightly farther than before.

The Court thus held that there is no illegality in shifting of the Schools or violation of Section 6 or the Rules.

Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Ummu Sulaim (Minor) and Ors. v The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors and connected matter

Case No: WP(C) 18868/ 2025 and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

Counsel for Petitioner: Rilgin V George, K T Raveendran, Akshara K P, Meera J Menon, Arathy P S, Anagha Manoj, K M Firoz, A B M HamdullahSayeed, Sayyid Mohammed Nilamuddin M, Aashique Akthae Hajjigothi

Counsel for Respondents: K S Prenjith Kumar (CGC)