Bombay HC stays Maharashtra’s decision exempting private schools from RTE admissions, cites ‘overwhelming public interest’

The RTE Act requires private schools to ensure that 25 per cent of Class 1 students admitted belong to “weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood.” Students admitted under this quota are given fee concessions, and the state government reimburses private schools for the same. Before Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala diluted private schools’ obligations under the RTE Act.

“It is a settled principle of law that any piece of subordinate legislation cannot be made in contravention of the principal Act itself,” the bench noted.

“Even otherwise, by adding impugned provisions, the right of children to get elementary education is being hampered, which is otherwise guaranteed in Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution,” it added.

The bench granted interim relief in a batch of pleas, including a writ petition by 17 people, including members of management of aided schools and parents from socio-economically backward classes.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Gayatri Singh argued that the notification be stayed as it was contrary to the RTE Act that provides quota at municipal schools, aided schools and private unaided schools.

Due to the government’s decision, many needy students are unable to seek admission, she added. While around 500,000 students applied through RTE last year, fewer than 50,000 students have applied so far this year, she said.

On April 29, the state government informed the high court that the last date for submitting online applications for admissions under the RTE Act would be extended from April 30 to May 10.

On Monday, the petitioners urged that an interim stay be granted in the matter because of impending admissions to be made in school starting May 10.

The petitioners argued that the amendment was not only unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 of the Constitution, but was also in contravention of the principal Act of 2009, under which rules were formulated. They added that various high courts, such as Allahabad High Court, had stuck down similar amendments made by respective state governments.

The petitioners argued that newly added rules excluded private unaided schools while the 2009 law mandated they to be included and therefore same was not permissible

However, Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan for the state argued that exclusion applied only to certain unaided schools and was ‘not absolute’ as the government or local authority has established schools within a one-kilometre radius of such private unaided schools.

The bench had said everyone is bound by the mandate under the 2009 law for 25 per cent reservation in admission in Class 1 to children belonging to weaker sections. Therefore, prima facie, the rule cannot be amended on the ground that sufficient numbers of government schools are available in the concerned area.

“Thus, having regard to overwhelming public interest in matter, till further orders, amendment shall remain stayed,” the bench held. It asked the respondent authorities to file their affidavits in reply before the next date of hearing on June 12.

Petitioners welcome verdict

Sharad Javdekar, the executive president of Akhil Bhartiya Samajwadi Shikshan Sabha, one of the petitioning associations from Pune, welcomed the court order. “The explanation of the RTE given by the Ministry of Education talks about the socialisation aspect of the quota under the RTE act, which enables socialisation between kids, whether rich or poor, in educational institutes at the fundamental level. We have been mobilising against these amendments which crush the spirit of the RTE law. The court has paid heed to our first demand which was for a stay on the amendments considering ongoing RTE admissions,” he said.

Mukund Kirdat, another RTE activist and spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Parents’ Union, said, “This court order reaffirms what we have been saying since the amendment came in February, that it is violative of not only RTE law but also fundamental rights.”