Quota under RTE | Judgement summary
Quota in Private Unaided Schools under RTEJudges: P.S. Narasimha J, A.S. Chandurkar J
On 13 January 2026, a Division Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar issued directions to strengthen the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
The provision mandates that private, unaided schools provide free elementary education to children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood, to the extent of at least 25 percent seats. In light of Article 21A of the Constitution, the Bench expressed the view that Section 12 has extraordinary transformative capacity and is a substantive measure towards securing “equality of status”. It directed authorities to frame enforceable rules and regulations to ensure implementation.
We summarise the 23-page Judgement.
Background
In 2016, the petitioner approached a neighbourhood school seeking admission for his children under Section 12. Despite information obtained through an RTI application indicating the availability of seats, the neighbourhood school did not respond. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226. The High Court held that the petitioner had failed to apply in accordance with the prescribed online procedure. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in 2017.
The Bench held that the RTE Act flows from Article 21A which guarantees the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of six and fourteen years. It further held that the right to elementary education, as a positive right, entails the recognition of corresponding duties, and accordingly identified five duty bearers—(i) the appropriate Government, (ii) the local authority, (iii) neighbourhood schools, (iv) parents or guardians, and (v) primary school teachers. Their respective obligations under the RTE Act were delineated by the Court in the following manner:
The Bench observed that the statutory design of Section 12 “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.” Recalling the Kothari Commission Report and its recommendation for a Common School System, the Court reiterated the vision for integrated neighbourhood schools that could potentially break down barriers of caste, class and gender.
The Judgement reproduced, in part, submissions placed by the amicus curiae, Senthil Jagadeesan, and the learned Assistant Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati. They flagged the absence of local language access, help desks, opportunities to correct defective applications, and transparency in seat availability as major concerns with implementation of Section 12. They also emphasised a need for sensitisation of staff, stronger grievance redressal mechanisms and disbursal of information to parents.
The Court took note that several States and Union Territories have failed to properly implement Section 12. It then underscored the statutory duties of the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights under Section 31 of the Act, which include reviewing, monitoring, and redressing grievances arising under the Act. These Commissions are established under Sections 3 and 17 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. In discharge of its statutory functions, the NCPCR has issued a Standard Operating Procedure for the implementation of Section 12(1)(c).
Referring to the NCPCR’s SOP, the Court outlined a three-stage admission process involving a preparatory stage, processing stage and post-admission stage. In the first stage, it highlighted the need for widespread disbursal of admission related information including clear eligibility criteria, a centralised online portal, and timely completion of admissions. In the second stage, it emphasised transparency, scrutiny by government teams, time for correction of defects, effective dispute resolution and free-of-cost help desks. Finally, in the post-admission stage, the Court laid out measures to ensure monitoring of vacant seats and clarified that admitted children must not face further scrutiny from the school.
Recognising that these SOPs are only guidelines that can neither ensure compliance nor enable judicial review, the Court found it necessary to frame binding subordinate legislation under Section 38. Accordingly, it directed the appropriate authorities to frame rules for implementing Section 12(1)(c), in consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs. The NCPCR was impleaded as a party, and directed to monitor compliance and file an affidavit on the status of rules framed by States and UTs by 31 March.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 6 April 2026.
(Sudhiksha Innanje is an intern at the Supreme Court Observer)