New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, should ideally apply to all minority institutions, regardless of whether they are aided or unaided. The court stated that a reconsideration of its 2014 Constitution Bench judgment, which had granted blanket exemption to such institutions, now “seems unavoidable.”
In the 2014 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India case, a five-judge bench had ruled that applying the RTE Act to minority schools, both aided and unaided, was unconstitutional, as it violated Article 30(1), which safeguards the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.
On Monday, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, while hearing a series of appeals related to the applicability of the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions, indicating that the 2014 verdict required fresh consideration, stated, “We…have serious doubts as to whether Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (ruling)…was justified in granting a blanket exemption to minority institutions falling under Article 30(1) from the applicability of the RTE Act.”
The bench instructed that its verdict be presented to the CJI for appropriate directions on whether the Pramati ruling should be revisited by a larger bench, Indian Express reported.
Writing for the bench, Justice Datta said, “In our considered opinion, the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided.” The court said that “its implementation does not erode—let alone annihilate—the minority character protected under Article 30(1). On the contrary, applying the RTE Act aligns with the purposive interpretation of Article 30(1)… There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A (right to education) and Article 30(1); both can and must co-exist mutually.”
The bench said that “Section 12(1)(c)” of the Act, “which mandates 25% reservation for children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections at the entry level, serves the broader purpose of social inclusion and universalisation of elementary education. While it is true that such a provision impacts institutional autonomy to some extent, the correct question, however, is whether it results in the annihilation of the minority character of such institution… this requires a fact-specific analysis, and not a blanket exemption.”
The court said that “Section 12(1)(c) does not alter school demographics in a way that would compromise the minority identity of minority schools. Minority institutions undisputedly admit students from outside their community; doing so under a transparent, state-guided framework does not affect any right. Moreover, Section 12(1)(c) is accompanied by a reimbursement mechanism, which ensures financial neutrality.” The ruling said, “even assuming that a conflict exists between Section 12(1)(c) and Article 30(1… such a conflict can be reconciled… by admitting children from the minority community itself, provided they fall within the definitions of ‘weaker section’ or ‘disadvantaged group’ as specified under the RTE Act.”
On TET, the court held that it “is one of the minimum qualifications that may be prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act”.