The implementation mandate of the Right to Education Act

On 13 January 2026, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar issued a slew of directions for the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). Parliament inserted the provision to further the constitutional mandate under Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged six to 14. Section 3 of the RTE introduced this mandate into the statute. 

Section 12(1)(c) mandates that an unaided school shall admit in class I, “to the extent of at least twenty-five per cent. of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion”. The Bench, in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v State of Maharashtra (2026), noted that the provision serves a deliberate strategy for social integration among children in their formative years. 

While this provision has remained in the statutes since the Act came into force and has survived a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court acknowledged in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar that full implementation remains a distant reality.

The present case 

The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in a case that had become factually infructuous. This meant that the judgment would make no impact on the original petitioner’s challenge. A father filed the petition in 2016 after a “neighbourhood school” denied his child admission, despite having vacant seats. The High Court had dismissed his petition, effectively faulting the father for failing to follow the online application process. The High Court did this despite an order by the primary education officer to admit the petitioner’s child even though he had not followed the online procedure. The appeal had remained pending at the Supreme Court since 2017.

Nearly a decade later, a Bench of Justices Narasimha and Chandurkar closed the matter in January 2026 by issuing directions for the effective implementation of Section 12(1)(c). The Court-appointed amicus curiae Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan identified key barriers to implementation: digital illiteracy, language barriers, and a lack of assistance for parents and guardians. Further, authorities failed to communicate the number of available seats, creating a lack of transparency in the admission process. The submissions and the judgement exposed a gap between the promise of a welfare statute and the delivery of that promise.

Challenges to Section 12

In April 2012, the Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of Section 12(1)(c) in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union of India. The petitioner, Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, had argued that it violated the right to freedom of trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g). The petitioner claimed that reserving 25 percent of seats in private unaided non-minority schools imposed an unreasonable mandate. The Court dismissed the challenge, ruling that the provision constituted a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) on Article 19(1)(g). The Court noted that the State, as per the statute, would reimburse schools for the expenditure they incur. 

The challenge resurfaced before a five-judge bench in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v Union of India (2014), where the Constitution Bench upheld the provision, noting that it aligns with Article 19(1)(g) to achieve the constitutional goal of providing equal elementary education opportunities to children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.

Notably, institutions established and administered by minorities are exempt from setting aside 25 percent of their seats for children of weaker sections. Recently, in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v State of Maharashtra (2025), a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan referred Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust to a larger bench, questioning the exclusion of minority institutions from Section 12(1)(c).

While the Court’s decisions reflect an intention to expand the ambit of the provision, Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar shifts the focus directly to implementation. A coordinate Bench led by Justice Narasimha with Justice Alok Aradhe also highlighted the lack of implementation of the provision. In Lucknow Public School, Eldico v State of Uttar Pradesh (2026), the Supreme Court reiterated “the constitutional and statutory obligation of a ‘neighbourhood school’ to give admission to students” under Section 12. It held that effective implementation requires schools to publish available seats well in advance and record any denial of admission with specific reasons, which educational authorities must review within strict timelines to ensure accountability.

In Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar, the Court kept the proceedings open, demanding that state governments and union territories file affidavits documenting their compliance with the Section 12(1)(c) mandate. 

What has happened so far? 

On 20 July 2026, the Bench led by Justice Narasimha directed the Union to file an interim affidavit on the steps taken so far. The Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Union has prepared draft rules following consultations and will submit its affidavit as per the Court’s direction. 

The matter is listed for further hearing in August 2026.