Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued multiple directions to ensure implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009, requiring private unaided schools to admit 25% of Class I strength from economically weaker and disadvantaged children for free education. The order stemmed from a parent’s complaint that a neighbourhood school did not process a request despite vacancies, in an admission system centred on online applications. The Court said neighbourhood schools are meant to function as common local schools that break barriers of class, caste and gender, and directed governments to issue rules under the Act in consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs, with the NCPCR to report by March 31, 2026.

The case arose from a grievance concerning denial of admission to children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections under the twenty-five percent quota mandated by Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petitioner approached a neighbourhood private unaided school seeking admission for his children in 2016. Despite information obtained through the Right to Information Act indicating availability of seats, the school did not grant admission.

Also Read: While Bail Need Not Be Denied As A Matter Of Course, It Cannot Be Granted On Irrelevant Considerations And Must Reflect Gravity Of Offence And Investigation Material: Supreme Court

The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court declined relief on the ground that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed online admission procedure for availing the quota. The petitioner contended that the online process was inaccessible and that authorities had already recommended admission, noting the proximity of his residence to the school and his economic condition.

By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, several years had elapsed, rendering individual relief impracticable. The Court therefore treated the matter as one raising issues of systemic implementation of Section 12 of the Act, particularly concerning access, transparency, and grievance redressal mechanisms. An amicus curiae was appointed to assist the Court.

The Court observed: “The obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of our society, to the extent of twenty- five percent of the class strength, under Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India, but also a substantive measure in securing the preambular objective of 'equality of status.”

On the statutory design behind neighbourhood schooling, the Court stated that admission to unaided neighbourhood schools embeds the principle that “the constitutional promise of education under Article 21A is to be realised through common local schools rather than segregated or parallel systems.” It recorded that implementing the right through neighbourhood schools “is not merely administrative; it is a deliberate constitutional strategy to operationalise equality of status, dignity, and social integration among children in their formative years.” It stated: “It envisages elementary education for all children, across the spectrum of class, caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional space.”

The Court recorded that: “Uncertainty about the obligation to comply with the requirements would also make judicial review complicated. We are of the opinion that it is necessary and compelling to formulate subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations, prescribing the method and manner by which children of weaker and disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighbourhood schools. Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object of Article 21A and the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) would be a dead letter.”

Accordingly, it directed the competent authorities to frame and notify the required rules and regulations under Section 38 through a consultative process involving the NCPCR, the State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights, and the National and State Advisory Councils.

The Court also took note of the directions placed before it as joint suggestions by the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeeshan, and the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati.

Issues and suggestions

(i) Implementation of Section 12 by the States/UTs and providing online portal for admission: Presently, all States and Union Territories have neither implemented the mandate of Section 12, nor established a portal dedicated to ensuring a transparent admission process.

(ii) Language: provide information in at least three languages – two being the official languages (Hindi and English) and the third being the local language

(iii) Information and assistance: Information regarding the admission process has to be made available to parents and guardians.

(iv) Transparency: Schools should be directed to publish the number of available seats much in advance and before the application stage commences.

(v) Establishment of help-desks and pro-active assistance: must set up help-desks to assist parents for completing the application process.

(vi) Window for clearance of defects: Instead of simpliciter rejection of a defective application, a defect clearance window should be established with an assistant to clear mistakes.

(vii) Complaints: A redressal mechanism for complaints by parents/guardians should be set up and the grievances must be resolved within strict timelines.

(viii) Transparency in denial of admissions: Denial of admissions should be recorded and uploaded with reasons and the same should be reviewed by the Block Education Officer within 72 hours.

(ix) Training: Training must be imparted to prevent discrimination of children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections.

The NCPCR’s SoP sets out a three-stage framework: the preparatory stage; processing applications, selection and admission; and the procedure after completion of the admission process.

Preparatory Stage

(i) Finalization of seats: The schools should be given 20 working days to submit the requisite data of the declared strength for purpose of Section 12(1)(c).

(ii) Advertisement: Appropriate Government and local authority should advertise the schedule of admission under Section 12(1)(c) in print and electronic media as well as locally used medium of broadcasting/publicising important announcements, especially in rural areas. This shall contain all the essential information regarding the admission process.

(iii) Schedule of admission: A calendar for admission under Section 12(1)(c) shall be scheduled in such a manner that the admission process is completed before beginning of admission of children under DG/EWS category. This is to be done at least two months from the commencement of the next academic year.

(iv) Centralized online system: The appropriate Government shall develop centralized online portal for admission under Section 12(1)(c). The joint suggestions recognize the existence of digital illiteracy and have suggested that the process must be accessible with the aid of help-desks etc., to bridge the gap of digital divide.

(v) Criteria: for determining children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections must have clarity and simplicity.

(vi) Documents: The requirement of documents necessary for processing the application for admission must be clearly mentioned.

(vii) Information about the school: It is necessary to ensure that the school is fully prepared and ready to undertake the process of admission effectively and efficiently. Public awareness in the local area about the admission process is necessary. The school as well as local authority have an obligation to disseminate this information.

(viii) Dispute settlement: Dispute Settlements Committees must be set up and their availability must be made known.

Processing Applications, Selection and Admission

(i) Help-desks: The local authority, respective neighbourhood schools and non-governmental organisations shall set up help-desks for free of cost facilitation of parents/guardian in filling the form on the online portal and other connected steps. For this purpose, assistance under the Common Service Centres Scheme shall also be made readily available.

(ii) Selection criteria: The criteria employed for giving preference to one applicant over the another and the process of draw of lots shall be laid out in simple and clear terms, and it must be widely published.

(iii) Scrutiny of applications: Scrutiny of applications shall be carried out by zonal/local teams, as directed to be constituted as per SOP notified by the GNCTD of Delhi dated 02.01.2025, instead of private unaided recognized schools.

(iv) Window for correction of defects: No application shall be summarily rejected on the ground of deficiency of required documents without first giving an opportunity for correction. For this purpose, a set timeline and procedure for providing window of correction shall be prescribed, taking specific guidance from the NCPCR’s SOP in this regard.

(v) Dispute resolution: Easy and effective mechanism for dispute resolution under Section 32 or by the Dispute Settlement Committee must be formulated.

After Completion of Admission Process

(i) Speaking order: The outcome of selection must be published through a speaking order.

(ii) Admission process: The online portal shall notify school-wise list of children selected. An updated record of the children taking admission must be maintained.

(iii) Initiation of inquiry: The authorities must monitor and keep a constant watch. In case there is a trend noticed with respect to reserved seats going vacant in a specific school, the causes must be enquired into.

(iv) Post-admission: The basic essentials for effective inclusion post admission must be undertaken.

(v) Reimbursement: Per-Child Expenditure reimbursement must be done without delay.

(vi) Finality of selection: The admitted children shall not be subjected to any further scrutiny by the respective schools.

However, the Court stated that subordinate legislation is required because the guidelines do not have the character of enforceable rules, breach of which would make the duty-bearers answerable to a reviewing authority.

Also Read: Court Premises Are Dignified & Inviolable Places, Not Venues For Protests: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court further ordered that “the NCPCR, New Delhi shall be impleaded as a party respondent.” It also directed that “the copy of our order shall be sent to the Commission for compliance and monitoring. The NCPCR shall collate information about the issuance of rules and regulations by the appropriate Governments of the States and Union Territories and file an affidavit before this Court by 31st of March, 2026.”

“This Special Leave Petition be listed for further hearing on 6th of April, 2026.”

Case Title: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v State of Maharashtra & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 56
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10105 of 2017
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar