Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan has issued directions to ensure the timely initiation of admission processes under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the reimbursement of expenses to private unaided schools. The Bench held that the State Government is under a statutory obligation to implement the provisions of the Act, irrespective of delays in receiving funds from the Union Government. It further stated that the obligations of schools and the State under the Act are inseparable and must be fulfilled concurrently.

The Court directed the State Government to commence the RTE admission process in time for the academic year 2025-26 and make reimbursements in accordance with statutory timelines and formulas. The Central Government was also directed to consider de-linking the RTE component from the National Education Policy 2020 and disburse funds accordingly. The writ petition was filed in public interest, raising concerns about delays in the admission process and reimbursements. The Court expanded the scope of the petition to address all related statutory obligations and financial responsibilities under the Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The writ petition was instituted in public interest by a petitioner raising the issue of delayed commencement of admission processes under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, for the academic year 2025-26. The petitioner submitted that, although the academic year was due to commence, the authorities had not yet opened the online application portal for RTE admissions as of the second week of May 2025. The petitioner had previously made representations on 22.04.2025, 30.04.2025, and 08.05.2025 to the authorities requesting initiation of the admission process, but no action had been taken.

The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to initiate the admission process for the academic year 2025-26 without further delay. The petitioner stated that timely initiation was essential to secure children their right to education under the RTE Act.

The State Government, represented by the Additional Government Pleader and Special Government Pleader, acknowledged the delay but contended that the reimbursement burden under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act had been borne entirely by the State for the year 2022-23 due to non-release of funds by the Union Government. The total unpaid share claimed from the Union Government was Rs.2151.59 crores for 2024-25.

To substantiate this, the State Government submitted that the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department had convened a meeting and circulated minutes indicating their plan to seek the Central Government’s share. Additionally, the State had already approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India in Original Suit Diary No.28793 of 2025 for a direction to the Union Government.

Given the emergence of funding-related concerns, the Court suo motu impleaded the Union Government as a party. The Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that although the Centre was committed to universal access to education, the Samagra Shiksha Scheme was aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Since Tamil Nadu had not agreed to implement NEP 2020, there were disbursement complications.

The Union Government pointed to Section 7(5) of the RTE Act, 2009, which vests the State Government with the primary responsibility of implementing the Act.

The Court examined the statutory framework in detail. It referred to the definition of “appropriate Government” and the obligation imposed under Sections 3 and 12 of the RTE Act. The statutory provisions obligate unaided schools to admit at least 25% of students from weaker and disadvantaged groups in Class I and provide free elementary education to them. In turn, the government must reimburse schools as per Section 12(2), which caps reimbursement at either the per-child expenditure by the State or the amount actually charged by the school, whichever is less.

The Court referred to previous judgments stating the necessity of timely reimbursements. In particular, it noted the decisions in The Correspondent, Krishnamal Ramasubbaiyer School v. State of Tamil Nadu and M. Suveathan v. State Commission, which affirmed that the State is primarily responsible for funding RTE entitlements regardless of Central Government support.

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state... It is the very foundation of good citizenship... Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." (quoting Earl Warren in Brown v. Board of Education).

The Court recorded that the issue at hand concerned not merely a procedural lapse but a constitutional and statutory obligation under Article 21A and the RTE Act, 2009. It observed that "this being a public interest litigation, we cannot confine ourselves to the writ prayer alone" and cited precedent enabling the court to "mould the reliefs and issue appropriate directions to do complete justice."

Referring to Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, the Court stated the equitable powers of writ courts to address broader issues in public interest cases.

The Court noted that the State Government’s justification based on the non-release of funds from the Union Government could not override its statutory duties. Citing Section 7(5) of the RTE Act, it stated: "The State Government shall... be responsible to provide funds for implementation of the provisions of the Act."

In quoting Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Court reiterated: "Section 7(5) of the RTE Act, 2009 provides that the right of children shall not suffer due to any delay in sharing of financial responsibilities and the State shall be responsible to provide funds."

The Court acknowledged the stand taken by the Union Government that the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is linked to NEP 2020. However, it maintained that "obligation under RTE Act is independent by itself" and cannot be made contingent upon NEP 2020 compliance.

Referring to Minor P.N. Kavin Nilavan vs. UOI, the Court remarked: "It is bounden duty of the State Government to discharge its obligation... and any delay... would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the scheme itself."

It concluded with a strong articulation of the interlinked responsibilities: "Duty of the schools to admit students under the RTE quota and the duty of the State to make reimbursement are like Siamese twins. One cannot be divorced from the other."

The Court directed the State Government to initiate the admission process under the RTE Act in time for the academic year 2025-26. It stated: "The State Government is obliged to commence the admission process under the RTE Act well in time so that the children admitted under this quota are able to join the respective neighbourhood schools at the very commencement of the academic year."

The Court further directed the State Government to make reimbursements in a timely manner. "The State Government is directed to make reimbursements by adhering to the timeline laid down in the statute. The quantum of reimbursement cannot be arbitrary. It has to be as per Section 12(2) of the Act r/w Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011."

Also Read: Financial Aid Does Not Establish Employment | Chhattisgarh High Court Holds SECL Not Employer of School Teachers Despite Funding

It held that "Non-receipt of funds from the Union Government cannot be cited as a reason to wriggle out of this statutory obligation."

In addition, the Court issued directions to the Central Government: "We... direct the Central Government to consider de-linking the RTE component of SSS and disburse the funds accordingly." It noted that "funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Government's share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020."

The petition was thus disposed of with directions to both the State and Union Governments.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Ponraj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Government Pleader assisted by Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader; Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Dr. G. Babu, Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: V. Eswaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. No.18427 of 2025

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan

[Read/Download order]