The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday said that a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to bring minority educational institutions under the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act should be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for appropriate orders. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that the matter involves issues of national significance concerning the right to education and inclusivity in schooling.

Background of the PIL

The petition, filed by advocate Nitin Upadhyay through counsel Ashwani Kumar Dubey, requests a writ directing that all schools, including those providing both religious and secular education, should adhere to the provisions of the RTE Act. The PIL also challenges the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act, claiming they are arbitrary and inconsistent with principles enshrined in the Constitution, including Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.

A key point of contention raised by the petitioner relates to the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), which was introduced to maintain the quality of teaching in schools. Currently, the TET is mandatory for non-minority institutions but is not applicable to minority-run schools. The PIL argues that this distinction undermines educational quality and creates unequal standards across the school system.

“Petitioner is filing a PIL under Article 32 seeking a writ order or direction that RTE Act and Teacher Eligibility Test shall be uniformly applicable to all schools,” the plea states.

Previous Apex Court Observations

The Supreme Court has previously grappled with this issue. On September 1, the top court referred the matter to a larger bench, expressing concern over the implications of its 2014 verdict in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. In that verdict, the apex court had exempted minority educational institutions from the RTE Act, citing Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

However, the bench noted that the exemption might have unintentionally jeopardized the foundational principles of universal elementary education. The court observed:

“Exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act leads to fragmentation of the common schooling vision and weakening of the idea of inclusivity and universality envisioned by Article 21A.”

Article 21A, which was added to the Constitution through the 86th Amendment, mandates that the State provide free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen years. The RTE Act operationalizes this constitutional guarantee, setting out specific entitlements, including trained teachers, adequate infrastructure, books, uniforms, and mid-day meals.

By excluding minority schools, the court pointed out, these entitlements are not uniformly guaranteed, creating disparities in the quality and accessibility of education.

Questions Formulated by the Court

The Supreme Court had framed four primary questions for consideration in relation to minority schools and the RTE Act. Central among them is whether the judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, which exempted minority educational institutions from the entirety of the RTE Act, requires reconsideration. The bench highlighted the need to examine whether the exemption is compatible with the objectives of inclusivity and universal access to education envisioned under Article 21A.

The apex court also noted that uniform applicability of the RTE Act, including provisions such as the TET, is crucial to ensure that all children, regardless of the type of school they attend, receive a minimum standard of education. It emphasized that the educational entitlements provided by the Act should not be contingent on the religious or minority status of a school.

Referral to the Chief Justice

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the bench directed that the plea be placed before the Chief Justice of India. This step is procedural but significant, as the CJI has the authority to decide whether the issues raised in the PIL should be heard by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Larger benches are typically constituted to resolve matters involving substantial questions of law or constitutional interpretation, particularly when prior judgments may need reconsideration.

The bench’s order underscores the sensitivity and importance of the case, highlighting the need for careful judicial consideration before altering or extending the scope of the RTE Act to include minority-run schools.

Broader Implications

The matter is closely watched by educationists, policymakers, and civil society organizations, as it touches on the balance between minority rights and the right to education for all children. If minority schools were brought under the RTE Act, they would be required to adhere to infrastructure norms, maintain minimum standards for teachers, provide mid-day meals, and ensure access to textbooks and uniforms for all enrolled children.

Critics of extending the Act to minority institutions argue that it could impinge upon Article 30 rights, which safeguard the autonomy of minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Proponents, however, stress that education is a fundamental right and should be uniformly guaranteed, ensuring that all children, regardless of the type of school, have access to quality education.

The Supreme Court’s consideration could set a precedent for how the RTE Act interacts with minority rights, potentially influencing educational policy and regulation across India. It also raises broader questions about inclusivity, equality, and the state’s responsibility to ensure that fundamental rights are protected without undermining constitutional safeguards for minorities.

Conclusion

By referring the plea to the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court has taken a measured step toward addressing a complex and consequential legal issue. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of India’s education system, the enforcement of the RTE Act, and the balance between minority rights and universal access to elementary education.

As the matter awaits consideration by a larger bench, stakeholders from across the educational and legal landscape will be closely observing developments. The case exemplifies the ongoing tension between constitutional protections for minority communities and the state’s obligation to guarantee fundamental rights to all children, highlighting the intricate interplay between law, policy, and social equity in India.