RTE Act’s Application to Minority Institutions

Case Description

Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust, an MEI, challenged the authorities’ refusal to allow the recruitment of teachers who had not cleared the TET. It relied on a 2014 Constitution Bench ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India, which held that the RTE Act (the TET was notified under Section 23) does not apply to either aided or unaided MEIs.

The Pramati decision

In Pramati, a five-judge Bench was constituted, following a reference from the three-judge Bench in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union of India (2012). This Bench had referred the matter in 2010, but went on to decide the case in a 2:1 majority because the larger Bench was not constituted immediately. The minority view held that the RTE Act did not apply to any unaided educational institution—whether minority or non-minority—as it infringed their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1). The majority, while agreeing that the RTE Act could not be applied to unaided minority institutions, held that the RTE Act, particularly the obligation imposed by Section 12(1)(c), applied to aided minority institutions. The majority reasoned that such a provision constituted a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), permissible under Article 19(6). 

In Pramati, the Court held that the RTE Act, to the extent it applies to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, is ultra vires the Constitution. 

The current case at the SC

In Anjuman, counsel had submitted that the right to be taught by qualified teachers is integral to the Right to Education. The State had a positive obligation to ensure that every child receives quality education on an equal footing.

The RTE Act provides nine years for teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications as may be prescribed. In Anjuman, the Court took the view that the applicability of the RTE Act to MEIs was incidental to the main issue in Pramati, and not essential to the decision.  The Court in Pramati was restricted to the validity of the Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2005 and the Constitution 86th Amendment Act, 2002. The Bench in Anjuman observed that the Constitution Bench in Pramati was not seized of the question as to whether the entire RTE Act was unconstitutional. They reasoned that the authority to explain conflicts in previous judgements is an integral part of its adjudicatory process. 

The Court observed that Article 21A stands a shade taller than many other rights, not merely by hierarchy but also by the weight of the journey it carries –  of struggle, consensus and a reaffirmation that the right to elementary education is not charity, but justice. 

Data and statistics on education

The Anjuman Bench referred to a study conducted by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in 2021, which revealed that only 8.76 percent of students in minority schools come from socially and economically disadvantaged sections.  Further, an overwhelming 62.5 percent of the total students in minority schools belong to non-minority communities. In states like Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Punjab and Delhi, this percentage was found to be even higher. “This is indicative of many institutions labelled as “minority” not serving their communities exclusively, but continuing to enjoy exemption from inclusionary mandates, the Bench added. 

The Bench found Pramati’s conclusion that the entire RTE Act was inapplicable to minority institutions, aided or unaided, is sweeping and bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. The blanket exclusion, it said, appears legally suspect and is questionable apart from being disproportionate. 

Therefore, it referred the decision for reconsideration to a larger Bench.