Quota in Private Unaided Schools under RTE
Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v State of Maharashtra
The Court will oversee the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides 25 percent reservations to students from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in private unaided schools.
Decided
Read Judgment
Parties
Petitioner: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar
Lawyers: Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Lawyers: Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Case Details
Case Number: SLP (Civil) No. 10105 / 2017
Next Hearing: April 6, 2026
Last Updated: February 5, 2026
Key Issues
- How efficient is the existing procedure for implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act?
Case Description
Factual background
In 2016, the petitioner approached a private school in his neighbourhood seeking admission for his children under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The provision mandates that all private unaided schools reserve 25 percent seats in class I for children from the neighbourhood who belong to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. It mandates that elementary education be provided to these children free of cost until completion.
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 after the school denied admission to his children. An RTI revealed that there were vacant seats at the school.
On 20 December 2016, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the petitioner had failed to take “appropriate steps” of applying for admission as per online procedure. However, the Court did not take note of a letter circulated by the Primary Education Officer of the Zila Parishad to the Deputy Education Officer to admit the children without following the online process.
The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). On 10 April 2017, the Court issued notice in the matter.
Present proceedings
On 4 January 2024, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar issued directions to the Secretary, Department of Education, State of Maharashtra to provide details on the number of allocated and vacant seats in the district. On 15 March 2024 the Court appointed Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan as the amicus curiae.
Between 17 to 28 January 2025, three hearings took place before a Bench of Justices Narasimha and Manoj Misra. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School Education & Literacy) and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) were impleaded as parties to the case.
On 1 December 2025, a Bench of Justices Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar reserved judgement.
On 13 January 2026, the Court passed a judgement, directing appropriate authorities to frame and issue enforceable rules and regulations for the implementation of Section 12(1)(c). The Court stated that providing admission to children of weaker and disadvantaged groups is a “national mission.”
The matter is listed for further hearings on 6 April 2026.
A similar matter titled Md. Imran Ahmad v Union of India is pending before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The Bench will examine the extent to which Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act has been implemented across states. The matter was last heard on 18 March 2025.