"Inclusive education is not symbolic but an enforceable right": Delhi High Court Orders Re-admission of Child with Mild Autism, Directs School to Provide Supportive Learning Environment with Shadow Teacher
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan has held that a child with mild autism cannot be denied access to inclusive education on the grounds of behavioural issues or technical lapses related to seat availability. The Court directed a private school to re-admit the child into an age-appropriate class as a fee-paying student and allow the presence of a shadow teacher during school hours. The Court further instructed the Directorate of Education (DoE) to monitor the reintegration of the petitioner and ensure that the school upholds a non-discriminatory and inclusive environment in accordance with applicable statutory mandates.
The petitioner, a minor child, was born on 08.05.2017 and initially exhibited delayed milestones in walking, speech, and sitting. In November 2019, autism was suspected by Dr. Richa Kapoor, and therapy was commenced, which was later interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner was admitted to the respondent school, GD Goenka Public School, in the academic session 2021-22 under the "Sibling Clause."
In December 2021, the petitioner was diagnosed with mild autism at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, and therapy was continued. The child initially attended online classes during the pandemic and later transitioned to offline classes in April 2022. At that time, diagnosis reports were submitted to the school administration by the petitioner’s parents.
The school raised behavioural concerns about the petitioner, citing instances of aggression, loud crying, and difficulty in managing the child. The school communicated to the parents that the child’s condition was becoming a safety concern for other students and staff. Despite requests from the petitioner’s mother for support in the form of a shadow teacher, the school failed to accommodate the same.
The petitioner eventually stopped attending school from January 2023. The mother asserted that the child was never formally withdrawn and that school fees were paid up to March 2023. A legal notice was served to the school in August 2024, seeking re-admission for the academic year 2024-25. In response, the school stated that the child had behavioural issues and that she had been voluntarily withdrawn by the parents.
In parallel, the petitioner applied for admission under the CWSN (Children With Special Needs) category via the DoE’s online admission portal for the academic year 2024-25. Through the lottery process, the petitioner was again allotted a seat in GD Goenka Public School under the CWSN category. However, the school refused admission, citing full capacity and safety concerns. DoE reassigned the petitioner to MaxFort School, Pitampura, where admission was ultimately declined due to documentation issues.
On 19.02.2025, the Court directed the Inclusive Education Branch of the DoE to constitute a Board to assess the child’s needs and determine whether integrated or special education was in her best interest. The Board, including a Clinical Psychologist and an Occupational Therapist, found the child to be capable of following instructions, sustaining attention, and completing tasks. They concluded that she could thrive in an age-appropriate class with the support of a shadow teacher.
The petitioner amended her request, seeking re-admission to GD Goenka Public School as a fee-paying student with shadow teacher support. She did not press for admission under the CWSN category.
The school, through counsel, contended that there was no vacancy in Class I and reiterated its stance that the child had been withdrawn. It also cited procedural lapses in the original admission, including non-disclosure of autism.
DoE submitted that it was open to considering the child for admission in future academic sessions if a vacancy arose and supported the Court’s direction for monitoring compliance.
The Court recorded: "The school cannot be allowed to defeat petitioner’s right to inclusive education by raising technical issues. No provision of law has been pointed out, and there exists none which provides that class strength or size, is rigid and inflexible not admitting an extra student."
Regarding the school’s stance on alleged withdrawal, the Court observed: "Indubitably, the petitioner had to stop attending school from January 2023, but the record makes it abundantly clear that this was not due to a desire to withdraw, but due to the school’s unwillingness to meaningfully accommodate her evolving needs."
On the claim of non-disclosure of autism at the time of admission, the Court stated: "It is important to note that it is the case of the petitioner that petitioner at the time of birth was a normal child... it was finally diagnosed in December 2021... at time of petitioner’s admission for the session 2021-22, she had not been finally diagnosed to be a patient of mild autism."
The Court addressed the school’s reliance on lack of seat availability: "The right to inclusive education under the Act is not symbolic but an enforceable right, and no child can be deprived merely due to the institutional unwillingness to adapt."
Citing the findings of the expert committee, the Court noted: "It is in the best interest of the child that she gets age-appropriate class placement to study in the present school along with Shadow Teacher's support."
The Court referenced the decision in Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency: "A right to education is essentially a right to inclusive education. In India, the RPwD Act, 2016 provides statutory backing to the principle of inclusive education."
Quoting from Social Jurist v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: "It is made clear that no disabled child shall be refused admission in any of the schools either run by the State Government or the local bodies."
The Court directed: "The respondent no.1/school is directed to readmit the petitioner, Aadriti Pathak, in Class I or in an age-appropriate class, as a fee-paying student, within two weeks from the date of this judgment."
It further held: "The petitioner shall be permitted to attend school with the assistance of a parent-appointed shadow teacher, subject to the school’s basic norms of decorum and safety."
The Court instructed: "The DoE shall monitor the reintegration of the petitioner and ensure that the school provides an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment in accordance with Sections 3 and 16 of the Act."
Lastly, it mandated: "The respondent no.1/school shall file a compliance affidavit within four weeks, detailing steps taken to accommodate and support the petitioner as directed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Kamal Gupta and Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Advocates for R-1; Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Ms. Aakriti Jain, Advocates for R-2/DoE
Case Title: XXX v. GD Goenka Public School & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5048
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13490/2024 & CM APPL. 56425/2024
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
