Denial Of Admission By Private Unaided School Not Article 21 Violation | Karnataka High Court Says Writ Maintainable If Fundamental Rights Are Impinged
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained against a private unaided school if an action on the part of such school impinges upon the fundamental or constitutional rights of a citizen. However, the Court dismissed the present petition, noting that there was no violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions in the case at hand. The Court concluded that mere non-admission to a particular school does not constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution when alternative schools are available, and the petitioner was neither admitted under nor entitled to benefits of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.
The matter concerned a petition filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent school to admit the minor petitioner to the LKG grade without hurdles. The petitioners contended that they had applied for admission and had received an intimation confirming selection. They were instructed to meet the Principal on 28.02.2025 between 01:30 to 03:30 p.m. to confirm the seat. However, the school’s website later reflected the status as “verification pending.” Upon enquiry, the school informed that a system glitch in its software had led to similar communications being sent to 61 students, which was later rectified.
The respondent school stated that it had a sanctioned strength of 150 students for admission, all of which had been filled. If admissions were granted to all 61 students who received erroneous communication, the number would exceed the sanctioned strength. The school maintained that there was no intention to deny admission to the petitioner but cited the completed admissions as the reason for refusal.
The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued that there was no bar to invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against a private unaided school, particularly in matters involving education as a public element. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court’s decision in W.P.(C) No.11229/2024 (Master Jai Kumar Through his Father Manish Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth and Others) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 7256-7259 of 2024 (Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma and Others). They submitted that any school, aided or unaided, is amenable to writ jurisdiction if it discharges public duties related to education.
The school raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable against it as a private unaided institution. It also reiterated that no seats were available beyond the sanctioned capacity.
The Court framed three points for consideration: (i) Whether the writ petition against a private unaided school is maintainable; (ii) Whether the relief sought should be granted in the circumstances; (iii) The appropriate order.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded that “the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extensive, and whenever any action is taken by any authority or private entity that impacts the fundamental and constitutional rights of a citizen of the country, power of judicial review can be exercised by this Court.” The Court noted the self-imposed limitations on jurisdiction, namely that “such exercise could be made only when there is a public element involved, and more importantly, if any of the fundamental rights of a citizen are affected by an action even taken by a private entity i.e., if there is a violation of fundamental rights, more particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that “merely because respondent No.3 is a private unaided school, would not mean that this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, if an action on part of the private unaided school impinges on the fundamental or constitutional rights of a citizen.”
Addressing the merits, the Court observed that there was no specific allegation in the petition of discrimination or any act that would violate Article 14. It stated that “the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.” It further recorded that “it is not the case that only if petitioner No.2 is admitted to respondent No.3 school, the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would be preserved.”
The Court also noted that the case did not fall under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, as the petitioner was neither eligible under the Act nor allotted to the respondent school under it.
The Court, having answered point No.1 in favour of maintainability and point No.2 against granting relief, issued its final order stating that “in view of my answers to Point Nos.1 and 2, the petition stands dismissed.” No further directions were issued for admission, and no costs were awarded.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Anwarali D. Nadaf, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sriyuths. P.N. Hatti, High Court Government Pleader; Akshay Katti, Advocate
Case Title: Muzammil S/o. Usmangani Kazi & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:9747
Case Number: WP No.101767 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
