The Supreme Court has held that the mandate under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (RTE Act) which requires unaided neighbourhood schools to admit at least 25% children from weaker and disadvantaged sections, has the potential to transform the social structure of society and must be implemented as a national mission.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing a petition filed by a parent who alleged that, despite the availability of seats under the 25% quota, his children were denied admission by a neighbourhood school. Though the Court noted that effective relief could no longer be granted in the individual case due to passage of time, it decided to examine the matter for precedent, observing that similar grievances continue to arise across the country.
The Court criticised the High Court’s approach in rejecting the petitioner’s plea on the ground that he had not followed the online admission procedure, despite official communications showing the availability of seats and recommendations by local education authorities. It noted that procedural barriers such as digital illiteracy, language difficulties, lack of transparency, and absence of accessible grievance redressal mechanisms often defeat the statutory right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Emphasising that elementary education is a positive fundamental right, the Court identified five duty bearers under the RTE framework: the appropriate government, local authorities, neighbourhood schools, parents or guardians, and teachers. It underlined that neighbourhood schools, including unaided private schools, carry a statutory obligation to admit children from weaker and disadvantaged groups and cannot evade this responsibility through procedural technicalities.
The Court examined the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and noted that while guidelines exist, they do not have the force of enforceable rules. The absence of binding subordinate legislation, the Court held, has resulted in inconsistent and ineffective implementation of Section 12(1)(c) across States and Union Territories.
Holding that the constitutional promise under Article 21A and Section 12(1)(c) of the Act would remain a “dead letter” without enforceable mechanisms, the court opined 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.”
The Court directed the appropriate authorities to frame and notify the necessary rules and regulations under Section 38 of the RTE Act for effective implementation of the 25% admission mandate. The rules have to be framed, in consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs, as the case may be, as well as the National and State Advisory Councils.
It further directed that the NCPCR be impleaded as a party and tasked it with monitoring compliance and filing an affidavit on the status of rule-making by States and Union Territories by 31 March 2026.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 6 April 2026.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
Respondents- Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Poonam Singh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Mili Baxi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv. M/s Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR
Amicus curiae- Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, Senior Counsel
