Sanchayita Lahkar

In a significant judgement upholding a child's right to education amidst parental disputes, the Delhi High Court Single Bench presided of Justice Vikas Mahajan ordered the Montfort School, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, to issue the Transfer Certificate (TC) within one week to a minor student who had shifted to another school in Gurugram. The court cited statutory obligations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and clarified that the existence of a matrimonial or guardianship dispute does not legally bar the issuance of a TC.

The writ petition was filed by a minor girl, represented through her mother, seeking directions to the Directorate of Education and Montfort School (Respondent No.2) to issue a Transfer Certificate (TC) for facilitating her regular admission in a new school in Gurugram, where she had been studying for over a year. The petitioner had relocated to Gurugram following the separation of her parents on 10 April 2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Insurer Liable For Fatal Trailer Mishap Pulled By Insured Tractor | Payment Ordered Within Two Months Under Root Cause Doctrine

According to the petition, the child was studying in Class IIC at Montfort School, Ashok Vihar, when her mother shifted residence to Gurugram post-separation. Subsequently, the minor was admitted to Gems International School, Palam Vihar, Gurugram. Despite completing one year of education at the new school, the petitioner had not received her TC from Montfort School. Her promotion had been provisional due to this administrative gap, and Gems International School insisted on the production of the TC for regularization.

The petitioner submitted that the TC was being withheld solely based on objections raised by her father (Respondent No.3), who had written to Montfort School urging non-issuance of the TC on the ground of an ongoing guardianship dispute. However, the petitioner clarified that no court order, particularly from the Family Court where the guardianship proceedings are pending, restrained the school from issuing the TC.

The counsel for the petitioner stressed that the absence of any judicial restraint made the school's refusal legally unsustainable. Moreover, the petitioner contended that under Section 5(3) of the RTE Act, the head of the institution is mandatorily required to issue a TC upon the student seeking admission to another school.

Respondent No.3, the father of the child, was represented by counsel who acknowledged before the court that no formal directive had been issued by the Family Court restraining the school from issuing the TC. He admitted to having requested the school to withhold the certificate due to ongoing litigation between him and the petitioner's mother.

Justice Vikas Mahajan carefully examined the facts and the legal framework applicable. Referring to Section 5(3) of the RTE Act, 2009, the Court quoted:"For seeking admission in such other school, the Head-teacher or in-charge of the school where such child was last admitted, shall immediately issue the transfer certificate.

Provided that delay in producing transfer, certificate shall not be a ground for either delaying or denying admission in such other school: Provided further that the Head-teacher or in-charge of the school delaying issuance of transfer certificate shall be liable for disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to him or her."

The Court stated that this provision creates a statutory mandate for the issuance of a TC and non-compliance could attract disciplinary consequences for the school authority.

On a query from the Bench, counsel for Respondent No.3 fairly admitted that no judicial order prohibited the issuance of the TC. The Court recorded this admission and noted that objections raised by the father alone could not constitute valid legal grounds to withhold the certificate.

Justice Mahajan also referred to a precedent from a coordinate bench in Sanavi Anand (Minor) & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 7639/2024]. The Court quoted from that order: "The Court... finds that on account of the matrimonial dispute between the parents of the petitioners, the rights of the minor children should not be adversely affected... The guardianship of the petitioners shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any other proceedings."

Also Read: Order Passed By Bench In Matter Outside Its Roster Would Be Without Jurisdiction And A Nullity | Kerala High Court Directs Single Judge To Determine Civil Or Criminal Nature Of Writ Petition

He observed that the principle laid down therein equally applied to the present case, reinforcing that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, unaffected by inter-parental legal disputes.

The Court, considering the limited nature of relief sought, disposed of the writ petition without requiring a response from Montfort School. It passed the following direction: "The present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2/ Montfort School to issue the Transfer Certificate (TC) to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

The Court further clarified: "However, in case the respondent no.2/School feels aggrieved with the present order, it shall be at liberty to file an application to seek revival of the present petition."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Mr. Nitin Saroha, Ms. Charu Modi, Ms. Sukriti Seth, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Kriti Dang, and Ms. Shanya Shukla.

For Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev, and Mr. Dhruv Kumar., Mr. R.D. Singh and Mr. Prateek Jindal.

Case Title: XXXX vs. The Directorate of Education & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) 5614/2025

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan

[Read/Download order]