Supreme Court tightens RTE enforcement, mandates rules for 25% free seats for poor in schools

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a detailed set of directions to strengthen the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which requires private unaided schools to reserve 25% of seats for children from economically weaker and disadvantaged sections, according to Live Law.

The court said the idea of “neighbourhood schools” under the RTE Act was conceived as a social equaliser, aimed at dismantling barriers of class, caste and gender, and warned that poor enforcement risks reducing the law to a hollow promise.

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar said that effective implementation of Section 12 could fundamentally alter social outcomes if backed by clear rules and accountability.

Need for enforceable rules

The court flagged a major gap in the current framework, noting the absence of subordinate legislation governing how admissions under Section 12 are to be carried out. It directed states and Union Territories to frame rules under Section 38 of the RTE Act in consultation with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), State Commissions and education advisory bodies.

“Uncertainty about the obligation to comply with the requirements would also make judicial review complicated. We are of the opinion that it is necessary and compelling to formulate subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations… Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object of Article 21A and the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) would be a dead letter,” the court said as reported by Live Law.

The NCPCR, which has already issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for implementation, has been directed to collect information on whether states have framed the required rules and file an affidavit before March 31.

Transparency, portals and grievance redressal

The court endorsed several recommendations made jointly by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeeshan and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. These include setting up dedicated online admission portals, publishing seat availability in advance, providing information in Hindi, English and local languages, and establishing help-desks to assist parents during the application process.

The court also called for a defect-correction window instead of outright rejection of applications, strict timelines for grievance redressal, mandatory recording of reasons for admission denial, and regular review by education अधिकारियों.

Training programmes were also recommended to prevent discrimination against children admitted under the quota.

Structured admission process

The NCPCR’s SoP, which the court examined, divides the process into three stages: preparatory, admission, and post-admission. These include finalisation of seats, public advertisements, clear selection criteria, local-level scrutiny of applications, dispute resolution mechanisms, timely reimbursement of per-child expenditure, and post-admission inclusion measures.

However, the bench stressed that these guidelines lack enforceability unless backed by statutory rules. The court noted that violations of guidelines alone do not make duty-bearers answerable, reinforcing the need for binding subordinate legislation.

Background of the case

The ruling arose from a special leave petition challenging a 2016 Bombay High Court order that rejected a plea for admission under the 25% quota after the parent failed to apply through the prescribed online process.

While the High Court had blamed the petitioner for not following procedure, the Supreme Court used the case to highlight systemic gaps that prevent eligible children from accessing their rights under the RTE Act.s