Why Supreme Court wants to revisit Right to Education exemption for minority schools

While hearing a case on whether schools must follow the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for hiring teachers, the court said the 2014 ruling may have undermined the goal of universal and inclusive education. The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice, asking for a larger bench to reconsider it.

What does the Right to Education Act mandate?

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act operationalises Article 21A of the Constitution, guaranteeing free elementary education for children aged 6–14.

It requires:

*Government schools to provide free education to all enrolled children.

*Aided schools to provide free seats proportionate to the aid they receive.

*Private unaided schools to reserve 25% of entry-level seats for children from disadvantaged groups, reimbursed by the State (Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act).

The Act set standards on pupil-teacher ratios, teacher eligibility, infrastructure, and banned corporal punishment and capitation fees. It also placed an obligation on all schools to contribute to universal education.

R. Govinda, who was instrumental in drafting the RTE, notes in his book Routledge Companion to Primary Education in India, “The RTE Act is child-centric and not institution centric.” He writes that its philosophy was rooted in “the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and the creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through the provision of inclusive elementary education to all.”

The law exempted only institutions imparting primarily religious instruction (like madrasas or Vedic pathshalas). It did not initially exempt schools run by minority communities, though Section 1(4) said its application was “subject to Articles 29 and 30” of the Constitution, which protect the cultural and educational rights of linguistic and religious minorities.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Govinda, who was also the former Vice Chancellor of the National University of Educational Planning, said, “When we drafted the RTE Act, we believed it was about the fundamental right of the child, not the administrative rights of schools. There was no need to exempt minority institutions. The right of an individual child should be held higher than the collective right of groups to run institutions as they wish.”

What led to the courts’ involvement?

When the RTE came into effect on April 1, 2010, private schools and minority groups resisted, saying the 25% quota infringed upon their autonomy. The Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan argued in the Supreme Court that the Act violated Article 19(1)(g) (on freedom of occupation) and Article 30(1) (on minority rights).

Govinda says in his book how “a barrage of criticism was unleashed immediately after the Act’s adoption from the private school lobby”, and “some openly resented the idea of their children sitting with the poor in the same classroom.”

In April 2012, a three-judge bench upheld the Act, calling universal education a “reasonable restriction” on school management. It applied the quota to government, government-aided (including minority-run) and private unaided non-minority schools. But it exempted unaided minority institutions, ruling that quotas would “change their character” and breach Article 30(1).

Former Delhi University Dean of Education Department, Anita Rampal, recalled: “It’s not so much a controversy as an interpretation of law. Article 30 allows minorities to establish and administer schools. Some felt the RTE conflicted with this autonomy, and that’s why they were exempted at the time.”

She added that Section 12(1)(c), which mandates the 25% quota, was misunderstood: “It was always about democracy and equity — bringing children from different backgrounds together. It was not about favouring only poor children. It was about education as a public good.”

What was the Pramati judgment?

A five-judge Constitution Bench in Pramati examined whether the RTE could apply to minority schools. It upheld the validity of Articles 15(5) and 21A as part of the Constitution’s basic framework, but concluded the RTE Act could not be forced on minority institutions without violating Article 30(1).

The court held that the 25% quota could alter the composition of minority schools, undermining their character. It ruled that “if the RTE Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1)… will stand abrogated,” and so, such provisions were deemed unconstitutional for minority institutions.

As Govinda writes, “The judgment… excluded a large number of schools from the purview of the RTE Act.”

What was the fallout?

The exemption quickly became controversial. Many private schools sought minority status — sometimes with only token minority management — to escape RTE compliance.

Latika Gupta, a faculty member at the Department of Education at DU, said, “Many so-called minority schools that were essentially private institutions with a minority label could escape norms. They did not admit poor children from their own community and continued as elite institutions.”

Govinda’s book stresses that the quota was meant to reshape classrooms: “The Act is an experiment in social engineering. It is hoped that… the new norm would gradually transform the social and economic composition of the schools by bringing in greater diversity and help bridge the widening inequality within the education sector.”

What has the Supreme Court said now?

In September 2025, Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan were deciding whether minority schools must enforce TET, which led to the debate being revisited.

The bench said Pramati had gone “too far,” undermining universal education and creating a “regulatory loophole.” It warned that the exemption “erodes the balance between autonomy and public interest” and dilutes inclusivity under Article 21A.

Justice Datta wrote: “In our considered opinion, the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions. Its implementation does not erode, let alone annihilate, the minority character under Article 30(1). Article 21A and Article 30(1) can and must co-exist.”

The court clarified that standards like qualified teachers and proper infrastructure do not destroy minority identity. On Section 12(1)(c), it held that whether the 25% quota undermines a school’s character must be judged case by case, not through blanket exemption. It suggested fulfilling it by admitting disadvantaged children from the same minority group.

Since a two-judge bench cannot overturn a five-judge precedent, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for a larger bench. Meanwhile, the court upheld that the TET is a valid requirement for all teachers, including in minority schools.

How has the judgment been perceived?

Educationists broadly welcomed the ruling.

Rampal called it “a sound position in line with children’s rights,” saying, “The Right to Education deals with children’s entitlements — the quality of education, the qualification of teachers. Exempting schools from this undermines those rights.”

She also linked the 25% quota to equity: “Having to share your experience of education with children from disadvantaged sections is a lesson in democracy for everyone.”

Gupta highlighted the everyday impact, saying, “Children in minority institutions will benefit from the norms… From an educational perspective, this is a very good beginning. The classroom space will open up, become more composite and mixed. Diversity enhances educational access.”

Govinda cautioned that both in 2014 and now, political considerations have overshadowed children’s interests: “This debate has always been more political than principled. If the rights of the child were truly at the heart of the matter, India would have ensured that no child is left behind. Instead, millions leave government schools every year for private ones, and nobody addresses that crisis.”

What happens next?

Pramati will now come up before a larger bench, likely of seven judges. If overturned, minority schools, especially those receiving aid, may once again be required to comply with RTE provisions.

Govinda’s book notes, “Apprehension of parents of this mixing of socio-economic categories in the classroom is understandable… It was indeed a culture shock for the elite sections. But the new norm would, over time, reshape the relational dynamics among the peer groups within and outside the classrooms.”

Gupta added, “Homogenisation of classrooms is never a good idea, whether by religion, gender, or any other criteria. Diversity enhances the quality of education.”