Delhi High Court: Private Schools Bound by RPwD Act, Must Provide ‘Reasonable Accommodation’; Orders Re-Admission of Child with Autism
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an appeal by G.D. Goenka Public School and directed it to re-admit a child with mild autism in Class I or an age-appropriate grade as a fee-paying student. The Court observed that private schools must take adequate measures to overcome the learning disabilities of children and stressed that “inclusive education” under Section 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 can be achieved only through “reasonable accommodation,” requiring appropriate modifications to ensure equal rights.
The proceedings arose from a writ petition filed on behalf of a minor child by her mother, after G.D. Goenka Public School discontinued her studies in January 2023 despite fees being paid until March 2023. The child, born on 8 May 2017, experienced developmental delays and was diagnosed with mild autism in December 2021 at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Parents subsequently sought therapy and support, including recommendations from specialists advocating integration into mainstream education with appropriate assistance.
The child was admitted to the appellant school in the 2021–22 session under the sibling clause. When offline classes resumed in April 2022, her diagnosis was shared with the school, and the parents requested support, including permission for a shadow teacher. The school, however, cited behavioural concerns, including aggression and disruption, and claimed that the parents voluntarily withdrew the child in December 2022 after discussions. The school later asserted that there was no continuity in enrolment for the 2023–24 session and therefore no basis for readmission in 2024–25.
The Single Judge, upon examining the records and invoking provisions of the RPwD Act, directed re-admission of the child with the support of a shadow teacher. The Court also instructed the Department of Education to monitor her reintegration and ensure an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment. The appellant school challenged this decision, arguing safety concerns for other students and relying on a psychiatrist’s report recommending specialized interventions over inclusive schooling.
During appeal, the Division Bench constituted an expert committee headed by Dr. Shahzadi Malhotra, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at IHBAS, including a clinical psychologist, an occupational therapist, the school counsellor, and the child’s mother. The committee evaluated the child and concluded she could be placed in an inclusive school environment with a shadow teacher, recommending periodic reviews and continued therapeutic support. The school raised objections, alleging procedural lapses and inadequate methodology. Nevertheless, the High Court considered these objections unfounded, affirming that the statutory framework mandates inclusive education and reasonable accommodation.
It stated: “The approach adopted by the appellant/school is in complete violation of various mandates embodied in RPwD Act, which also denies the child her rights available under the said Act.” The Court noted that the Act ensures empowerment, dignity, non-discrimination, and inclusion of persons with disabilities in society.
Quoting Section 2(m), the Bench observed: “‘Inclusive education’ means a system of education wherein students with and without disability learn together and the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted to meet the learning needs of different types of students with disabilities.” It further stated that Section 3 mandates equality and non-discrimination, requiring the government to provide an environment conducive to utilizing the capacities of persons with disabilities.
On the role of educational institutions, the Court stated: “RPwD Act contains various mandates not only to the Government and local bodies but also to the educational institutions (Section 16 of the RPwD Act) which include that institution should provide ‘reasonable accommodation’ according to the individual’s requirement and further that they shall admit persons with disabilities without discrimination.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (2023) 2 SCC 286, noting: “Education plays a key role in social and economic inclusion and effective participation in society. Inclusive education is indispensable for ensuring universal and non-discriminatory access to education.” It also referred to the definition of reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y): “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others.”
Addressing objections raised by the appellant, the Bench recorded: “We find the objections raised to the said note as also to the Report of the Committee by the appellant/school unfounded. The objection only reflects the non-cooperative approach of the appellant/school resulting in denial of right of the child as available to her under RPwD Act.” The Court stressed that such rights are not mere formalities but embody human rights designed to ensure full inclusion.
The Court also upheld the credibility of the expert committee: “We do not have any reason whatsoever to have even an iota of doubt on the report submitted by the Expert Committee and the note tendered by its Chairperson.”
The final order stated: “For the discussion made and reasons given above, we are in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein and find that the appeal is unmerited.” The Court dismissed the appeal and issued a directive: “Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant/school to ensure compliance of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge within two weeks from today.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh and Ms. Sabrina Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan, Advocates; Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel with Mr. Parvin Bansal and Ms. Aqsa, Advocates for IHBAS; Ms. Shahzadi Malhotra, Clinical Psychologist, IHBAS (through VC); Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate
Case Title: G.D. Goenka Public School v. Aadriti Pathak & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8442-DB
Case Number: LPA 499/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
