Published on October 17, 2025
Delhi, India
In a pivotal step toward bridging educational divides, the Supreme Court of India on October 15, 2025, referred a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, urging a reevaluation of minority schools’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. Filed by petitioner Nitin Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey (W.P.(C) No. 934/2025), the plea demands uniform enforcement of RTE provisions, including the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), across all schools—religious, secular, minority, or otherwise. This move builds on the Court’s September 1, 2025, observations doubting the 2014 Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust judgment, which shielded minority institutions from RTE obligations under Article 30(1). As India grapples with 26 crore children in the 6-14 age group, where disparities persist despite RTE’s rollout, this referral could redefine inclusivity, ensuring no child misses out on quality education due to institutional status. With a related matter already pending, the stage is set for a larger bench to harmonize minority autonomy with universal rights.
Background and Rationale
The RTE Act, enacted to operationalize Article 21A (free and compulsory education for ages 6-14), mandates 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups, qualified teachers via TET, infrastructure, mid-day meals, uniforms, and books. Yet, Sections 1(4) and 1(5) exempt minority institutions—citing Articles 29 and 30—sparking debates on equity versus autonomy. The 2014 Pramati ruling (five-judge bench) upheld this blanket exemption, deeming RTE intrusive on minority rights to establish and administer schools. Fast-forward to 2025: Rising concerns over “misuse of minority status” (e.g., a 300% surge in certifications post-2009, per NCPCR reports) and uneven education quality prompted scrutiny.
- Triggering Events: On September 1, 2025, Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, hearing a TET applicability case, flagged the Pramati verdict as potentially “legally suspect” and “disproportionate,” arguing it “unknowingly jeopardised the very foundation of universal elementary education.” They noted exemptions fragment common schooling, weakening Article 21A’s inclusivity vision.
- Policy Context: RTE compliance has boosted enrollment by 15% since 2010, but minority schools (1.5 lakh+ nationwide, educating 10-15% of students) often lag in facilities, per ASER 2024 data. The PIL invokes Article 32 for enforcement, claiming exemptions violate Articles 14 (equality) and 21A.
- Broader Stakes: Aligns with NEP 2020’s equity focus; addresses critiques that exemptions enable “mal-administration” without eroding minority character.
This referral signals a judicial pivot: RTE as a child’s right trumps selective exemptions.
Key Developments and Supreme Court Actions
The October 15 bench (Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih) swiftly tagged the PIL to the CJI, citing the pending related matter for bundled hearing. “The plea be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders,” they directed, emphasizing urgency.
| Date | Key Action | Bench Involved | Outcome/Quote |
|---|---|---|---|
| September 1, 2025 | Doubts raised on Pramati ruling; four questions framed for larger bench review. | Justices Dipankar Datta & Manmohan | “Exemption… leads to fragmentation of the common schooling vision and weakening of the idea of inclusivity.” Referred to CJI for bench constitution. |
| October 15, 2025 | PIL on RTE/TET uniformity referred to CJI. | Justices Dipankar Datta & Augustine George Masih | Noted similar pending issue; urged detailed hearing. |
| Pending | Larger bench formation; potential overruling of Pramati. | CJI B.R. Gavai to decide | Could mandate RTE for all schools except pure religious ones (e.g., Vedic Pathshalas). |
- Framed Issues: (1) Revisit Pramati? (2) Does Section 12(1)(c) (25% quota) infringe Article 30? (3) Impact of ignoring Article 29(2) (non-discrimination in state-aided institutions)? (4) Should entire RTE be struck down?
- Interim Stance: Non-minority schools must comply fully; in-service teachers get TET relief based on service years (e.g., exemptions near retirement).
The Court’s proactive referral underscores a commitment to constitutional harmony.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Challenges
The PIL, under Article 32, seeks to declare Sections 1(4) and 1(5) “void and inoperative” for breaching equality and education rights (Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A). Core contentions:
- Uniformity Imperative: TET ensures teacher quality; its absence in minority schools creates disparities, denying children “substance” in education.
- Article 30 Limits: Autonomy doesn’t mean “mal-administration”; RTE compliance preserves minority character while advancing inclusivity—”Article 30 aims to establish equality… placing minorities on an equal footing.”
- Misuse Evidence: Post-Pramati, minority tags surged for evasion; many such schools lack RTE basics, perpetuating exclusion.
- Child-Centric Focus: Exemptions undermine RTE’s social engineering—diverse classrooms bridge inequalities.
Opponents (e.g., minority trusts) counter that RTE erodes administrative rights, but petitioners cite 2019 SC clarification: Rejected minority apps trigger full compliance.
Constitutional Tensions: Article 30 vs. RTE Provisions
At heart: Balancing minority protections with universal rights.
| Provision | Description | Tension Point |
|---|---|---|
| Article 21A | Free/compulsory education (6-14 years); RTE operationalizes via infrastructure, TET, 25% EWS quota. | Exemptions fragment universality; Court: “Right to education cannot be deprived of substance.” |
| Article 30(1) | Minorities’ right to establish/administer institutions. | Pramati shielded from RTE as “infringing autonomy”; Now questioned: Does RTE “erode” character? Court says no—co-existence possible. |
| Sections 1(4)/(5), RTE | Applies “subject to” Articles 29/30; Exempts religious schools. | Challenged as arbitrary; Ignores Article 29(2) (no denial of admission on religion/ race in aided schools). |
Historical pivot: 2012 T.M.A. Pai ruling affirmed reasonable regulations; Pramati extended exemptions, but 2025 scrutiny revives debate.
Implications for Minority Institutions and Education Landscape
A favorable ruling could transform 1.5 lakh minority schools (Muslim, Christian, Sikh-led dominant), impacting 2-3 crore students.
- For Institutions: Mandatory 25% EWS admissions, TET-qualified staff, infrastructure upgrades—standardizing quality but straining budgets (e.g., aided schools get reimbursements; unaided face costs).
- Student Benefits: Uniform access to mid-day meals (nutrition boost: 20% anemia drop per NFHS), books/uniforms, reducing dropouts (RTE cut 10% since 2010).
- Equity Ripple: Ends “two-tier” system; curbs misuse (e.g., Gujarat: 117 schools denied 2,090 RTE seats in 2019). Aligns with NEP’s diversity goals.
- Challenges: Potential resistance; rural minority schools (40%) may need state aid. Overall: 15-20% enrollment rise in underprivileged areas.
Dismissed 2022 PIL highlighted persistent gaps; this referral offers closure.
Preparation and Action Steps
For educators, parents, and advocates eyeing outcomes:
- Track Proceedings: Monitor SCI website/supremecourt.gov.in for larger bench listing; join amicus briefs if eligible.
- School Readiness: Minority institutions: Audit TET compliance; prepare for 25% quota via EWS lotteries.
- Advocacy Tools: Reference ASER/NCPCR reports; use RTE portals for grievances.
- Timeline:
- Oct-Nov 2025: CJI assigns bench.
- 2026: Hearings; interim orders possible.
- Post-Ruling: 6-12 months for state implementations.
- Resources: Legal aid via NALSA; RTE helpline 14408.
Stakeholders: Engage via petitions—your voice shapes the verdict.
