Against equal society: Supreme Court questions its 2014 ruling on exemption to minority schools from RTE Act

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the exemption granted to minority schools from the Right to Education (RTE) Act was leading to a surge in institutions seeking minority status to bypass the law [Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v The State of Maharashtra & Ors].

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan made the observation while questioning the decision of a Constitution Bench in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India that the RTE Act was not applicable to minority schools.

The Court said the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust might have unknowingly jeopardized the very foundation of universal elementary education and lead to reinforcing the divides in the society.

“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. We are afraid, instead of uniting children across caste, class, creed, and community, it reinforces ‘divides’ and ‘dilutes’ the transformative potential of shared learning spaces. If the goal is to build an equal and cohesive society, such exemptions move us in the opposite direction. What commenced as an attempt to protect cultural and religious freedoms has inadvertently created a regulatory loophole, leading to a surge in institutions seeking minority status to bypass the regime ordained by the RTE Act,” it observed.

The Court was dealing with the question of whether the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) was a mandatory requirement under the RTE Act, including for minority schools.

Considering its doubts about the Constitution Bench decision, the Court made a reference for a decision by a larger bench. However, for the non-minority schools, it ruled that in-service teachers would be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.

With regard to the minority schools, the Court said the ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust “strikes at the heart” of good quality universal elementary education and that its consequences are far-reaching. 

The Court opined that the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, that guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, is to preserve the linguistic and cultural identity of minority communities through education, not to create parallel systems that are insulated from universally applicable norms.

“Basic requirements related to infrastructure, teacher qualifications, and inclusive access, especially at the elementary level under Article 21A, do not interfere with a school's minority character. On the contrary, these norms ensure that the right to administer does not become a license to exclude or operate without accountability. Interpreting Article 30(1) as a blanket shield erodes the balance between autonomy and public interest, and undermines the constitutional vision of inclusive, equitable education for all,” the Court said.

It added that the RTE Act does not impose an onerous or excessive regulatory burden but lays down the bare minimum core obligations and standards that all schools must follow to ensure that the constitutional promise envisioned by Article 21A is not rendered meaningless.

Requirements such as trained teachers, adequate infrastructure and prohibition of corporal punishment are educational essentials, not ideological impositions, the Court opined. 

While the autonomy of minority institutions must be protected, it is not beyond the reach of reasonable regulation in the interest of maintaining educational standards and achieving constitutional goals, the Court further said.

“Minority institutions, while retaining their autonomy in matters essential to their cultural and linguistic identity, do not operate in a vacuum. Once they enter the realm of formal schooling and benefit from recognition, affiliation, or aid from the State, they partake in the broader constitutional project of building an inclusive and educated society. It would therefore be constitutionally untenable to argue that such institutions remain unaffected by frameworks such as the RTE Act through which the State seeks to discharge its obligations. Reasonable participation in this vision does not and cannot dilute its institutional character,” it added.

The Court also opined that the Constitution Bench’s conclusion seems to be based solely on the RTE Act provision pertaining to reservation of 25 percent seats at the entry level for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. 

“Resting thereon, it was concluded that if the RTE Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will stand abrogated. Conspicuously silent as it is on any examination or assessment of the other provisions of the RTE Act such as those relating to teacher qualifications, infrastructural norms, or child safety measures and how, if at all, they conflict with Article 30(1) — the one aspect that eludes us is the complete absence in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) of any discussion on or any analysis of any provision of the RTE Act vis-à-vis Article 30(1) of the Constitution other than Section 12,” it added.

In this regard, the Court said Section 12(1)(c) does not mandate that 25% of children admitted under the quota must belong to a different religious or linguistic community. The requirement can be met by admitting  children from the minority community itself, it added.

“If the 25% quota is utilised by admitting children from the minority community itself, albeit those who are economically weak or socially disadvantaged, does the question of “annihilation” really arise at all… The exemption granted in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) on the assumption of demographic dilution fails to consider this nuance and, in our humble opinion, warrants reconsideration,” it opined.

The Court also said that absence of clear guidelines on minimum enrollment of minority students has made it easier for institutions to claim minority status without fulfilling its spirit.

With no obligation to admit disadvantaged students, many of these institutions remain insulated from broader constitutional goals of equality and inclusion, the bench observed.

The Court further said that while the RTE Act ensures children a range of entitlements, minority schools are not necessarily bound to provide these facilities.

“Some minority schools might provide a few facilities as are mandated by the RTE Act, but others may fall short leaving their students without access to such mandated facilities. For many of these students, such benefits are not just amenities but affirmations of belonging, equality, and recognition,” it added.

It further commented that the RTE Act ensures common curricular standards through notified academic authorities, guaranteeing that every child receives quality education based on constitutional values.

Minority institutions, however, operate without such uniform guidelines, "leaving children and their parents uncertain" about what and how they are taught, and often disconnected from the national framework of universal learning, the Court said. 

“In the wake of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra), we are pained to observe that minority status seems to have become a vehicle for circumventing the mandate of the RTE Act. In our humble opinion, it has opened up a situation whereby multiple institutions have sought to acquire minority status to become autonomous. It has also opened the door for potential misuse. Exemption of even aided minority institutions from the framework of the RTE Act has further encouraged the proliferation of minority-tagged schools not necessarily for the preservation of language, script, or culture, but to circumvent statutory obligations. This has distorted the spirit of Article 30(1), which was never intended to create enclaves of privilege at the cost of national developmental goals,” the Court opined.

Accordingly, it framed following questions for consideration by a larger bench:

a. Whether the judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) exempting minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, from the purview of the entirety of the RTE Act does require reconsideration for the reasons assigned by us?

b. Whether the RTE Act infringes the rights of minorities, religious or linguistic, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution? And, assuming that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act suffers from the vice of encroaching upon minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution, whether Section 12(1)(c) should have been read down to include children of the particular minority community who also belong to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood, to save it from being declared ultra vires such minority rights?

c. What is the effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) of the Constitution in the context of the declaration made in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) that the RTE Act would not be applicable to aided minority educational institutions?

d. Whether, in the absence of any discussion in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) regarding unconstitutionality of the other provisions of the RTE Act, except Section 12(1)(c), the entirety of the enactment should have been declared ultra vires minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution?

[Read Judgment]