New Delhi: The Supreme Court, dismissing a plea by a Lucknow-based private school that had denied admission to a child selected under the 25 per cent quota for weaker sections, on Tuesday reiterated that neighbourhood schools have a binding constitutional and statutory obligation to grant immediate admission to students allotted by the state government under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe refused to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order directing Lucknow Public School, Eldeco, to admit a pre-primary student whose name had been forwarded by Uttar Pradesh authorities for the 2024–25 academic session.
“This is yet another occasion for us to reiterate the constitutional and statutory obligation of a ‘neighbourhood school’ to give admission to students forwarded by the state government without any delay,” the Justice Narasimha-led Bench said.
The top court said such an obligation is consistent with Article 21A of the Constitution, Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011.
The dispute arose after the child applied through the state government’s prescribed admission process and was duly selected by the Basic Education Department for admission to the petitioner school. However, despite the government forwarding the child’s name, the school refused admission on the grounds that there was uncertainty regarding the child’s eligibility.
The student subsequently approached the Allahabad High Court, which allowed the plea and held that once the admission process was completed and the allocation list forwarded, the school had no option but to admit the child.
Upholding the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court said schools cannot sit in appeal over decisions taken by the government under the RTE framework.
“The right to education, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, will remain an empty promise if the mandate of the RTE Act, 2009, is not worked out in its letter and spirit,” the apex court observed.
It held that once the state government scrutinises an application and allots a child to a school, the institution is duty-bound to admit the student without awaiting the outcome of any representation or dispute it may raise before authorities.
“For schools that may have some disagreement with the selection by the government, they can make representation to the concerned authority, but they ought not wait for the outcome of such a representation and are mandated to grant admission to the student whose name finds mention in the list forwarded to the school,” the judgment said.
Stressing that immediate compliance is essential to realise the constitutional promise of free and compulsory education, the bench said delays by schools directly undermine children’s rights.
The Supreme Court also described the neighbourhood school model under Section 12 of the RTE Act as a transformative constitutional mechanism designed to advance substantive equality and social justice.
By mandating that at least 25 per cent of entry-level seats in private unaided schools be reserved for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections, the law seeks to dismantle entrenched barriers of caste, class and gender, it said.
“The mandate under Section 12 of the Act must be enforced with conviction and commitment. We have to ensure admission of at least twenty-five per cent of class strength in unaided schools with children of weaker and disadvantaged groups. This is certainly a national mission,” the bench said.
The judgment further said that effective implementation of the RTE framework requires schools to publish available seats in advance, transparently process admissions, and provide written reasons for any denial, subject to strict review by educational authorities.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the apex court reaffirmed that neighbourhood schools play a central role in fulfilling the constitutional vision of equality of status and educational inclusion.
“The legislative choice to implement the right to free and compulsory education 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,” the Supreme Court said, affirming the Allahabad High Court’s direction to admit the student without delay.
(IANS)
