Private schools can’t deny admission to underprivileged students sent by state: Supreme Court

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that private unaided schools cannot sit in judgment over the eligibility of children from weaker and disadvantaged sections once their names are forwarded by the state, underscoring that denial of admission in such cases would defeat the constitutional promise of education. The ruling also stressed the need for transparency and accountability in admissions, including advance disclosure of available seats. (File Photo/ANI)Taking a firm view on the implementation of the Right to Education framework, the court stressed that enforcing the 25% quota for such students in unaided schools is not merely a statutory requirement but a “national mission” tied to the Constitution’s commitment to equality of status. A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that once the state government completes the admission process and allocates a student to a school, the institution is bound to grant admission without delay. Any disagreement with the selection, the court clarified, can only be raised before the competent authority, but cannot be used as a ground to deny or defer admission. Also read: State can intervene when religious rights affect secular activities: Supreme Court The ruling came as the bench dismissed an appeal filed by a Lucknow-based private school challenging an Allahabad High Court order that had directed it to admit a girl child from a weaker section. The school had refused admission citing doubts over the student’s eligibility despite her name appearing in the list finalised and forwarded by the state authorities. Affirming the high court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court made it clear that the statutory scheme under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) leaves no room for such discretion at the level of schools. Once the state has scrutinised applications and assigned students, “the school has no option except to grant admission,” the court noted. The bench emphasised that any delay or refusal at the school level directly undermines the child’s fundamental right to education under Article 21A. Also read: Asiatic Tomorrow panel moves SC amid poll delay The judgment reaffirmed the “neighbourhood school” concept embedded in the RTE Act. The court described it as a conscious constitutional strategy aimed at dismantling entrenched social barriers and fostering integration among children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. By mandating that at least 25% of entry-level seats in unaided schools be reserved for children from weaker and disadvantaged groups, the law seeks to transform schools into shared civic spaces that promote equality, dignity and inclusion. The bench observed that this framework is not merely administrative but rooted in the Constitution’s vision of substantive social justice. “Ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority,” said the court, adding that effective implementation has the “extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society.” The judgment goes beyond the immediate dispute to outline a broader accountability framework. It identified multiple “duty bearers” responsible for realising the right to education, including governments, local authorities, neighbourhood schools, parents and teachers, stressing that each has a defined role in ensuring that no child is denied access. Notably, the court also highlighted the judiciary’s responsibility in this ecosystem, stating that courts must “walk that extra mile” to ensure that parents facing denial of admission receive swift and effective remedies. The bench underlined that procedural hurdles or institutional reluctance cannot be allowed to dilute a fundamental right, particularly when it concerns children at the foundational stage of education. Clarifying the operational aspect, the court held that even if a school has reservations about the state’s selection, it must admit the child first and pursue its objections separately. This immediacy, the bench noted, is crucial to prevent disruption in a child’s education and under the RTE framework. The ruling also stressed the need for transparency and accountability in admissions, including advance disclosure of available seats. Dismissing the school’s plea, the Supreme Court concluded that the success of the RTE Act hinges on its robust and faithful implementation. The 25% quota for children from weaker sections, it said, is not a token provision but a transformative instrument aimed at realising the constitutional promise of equal opportunity.