Supreme Court Signals Major Shift: Reconsidering RTE Exemption for Minority Institutions

New Delhi: In a landmark move that could redefine India’s education framework, the Supreme Court of India has called for a re-examination of its 2014 judgment in the Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust case, which exempted minority educational institutions from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. On September 1, 2025, a two-judge bench, led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, expressed concerns that the blanket exemption undermines the constitutional vision of universal and inclusive education. The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consider whether a larger bench should revisit the 2014 ruling, potentially bringing minority schools—both aided and unaided—under the RTE’s ambit.

Caption: Supreme Court Challenges 2014 Ruling, Pushes for RTE Act Inclusion of Minority Schools to Ensure Universal Education

Background of the Pramati Judgment

In 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India ruled that the RTE Act, when applied to minority schools covered under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution, was unconstitutional. Article 30(1) grants linguistic and religious minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. The Pramati decision held that enforcing RTE provisions, particularly the mandate for 25% reservation of seats for economically and socially disadvantaged children under Section 12(1)(c), infringed on these rights by potentially altering the schools’ minority character.

This ruling exempted both aided and unaided minority institutions from RTE compliance, leading to significant consequences. Many private schools sought minority status—sometimes with only token minority representation—to bypass RTE obligations, creating a loophole that critics argue has fragmented the vision of universal education and deepened social divides.

The RTE Act: A Child-Centric Vision

Enacted on April 1, 2010, the RTE Act operationalizes Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory elementary education for children aged 6 to 14. Described as a child-centric policy, the Act aims to foster equality, social justice, and democracy through inclusive education. Its key provisions include:

• Free Education in Government Schools: All enrolled children receive free education.
• Proportional Free Seats in Aided Schools: Schools receiving government funding must provide free seats based on the aid received.
• 25% Reservation in Private Schools: Section 12(1)(c) mandates private unaided schools to reserve 25% of entry-level seats for children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, with state reimbursement.
• Quality Standards: The Act sets norms for pupil-teacher ratios, teacher qualifications (including the Teacher Eligibility Test or TET), infrastructure, and bans practices like corporal punishment and capitation fees.
• Inclusivity: It ensures no child from disadvantaged or weaker sections is denied elementary education.

R. Govinda, a key figure in drafting the RTE and former Vice Chancellor of the National University of Educational Planning, emphasized in his book, Routledge Companion to Primary Education in India, that the Act prioritizes the child’s fundamental right over institutional autonomy. He noted, “The RTE Act is child-centric and not institution-centric,” rooted in the belief that inclusive education is essential for a just society.

When introduced, the RTE Act did not explicitly exempt minority institutions, though its application was subject to Articles 29 and 30, which protect minority cultural and educational rights. Govinda told The Indian Express that there was no need to exempt minority schools, as the child’s right to education should take precedence over administrative privileges.

Resistance and Legal Challenges

The RTE Act faced immediate pushback from private schools and minority groups, who argued that the 25% quota infringed on their autonomy under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of occupation) and Article 30(1). The Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan challenged the Act in the Supreme Court, leading to a 2012 ruling by a three-judge bench. This decision upheld the Act’s validity, applying the quota to government, aided (including minority-run), and private unaided non-minority schools but exempted unaided minority institutions to preserve their character.

The Pramati judgment in 2014 extended this exemption to all minority schools, arguing that RTE provisions could abrogate their Article 30(1) rights. Govinda notes in his book that this excluded a significant number of schools from RTE compliance, while Latika Gupta, a faculty member at Delhi University’s Department of Education, told The Indian Express that many so-called minority schools used this status to function as elite institutions, avoiding admissions of disadvantaged children, even from their own communities.

Supreme Court’s 2025 Observations

The current debate arose while the Supreme Court considered appeals on whether minority schools must enforce the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), a minimum qualification under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The Bombay High Court (December 12, 2017) had ruled TET mandatory for minority institutions, prompting appeals from groups like Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust. Conversely, the Madras High Court (June 2, 2023) deemed TET inapplicable, citing Pramati, a decision challenged by the state.

On September 1, 2025, Justices Datta and Manmohan expressed “serious doubts” about the Pramati ruling’s blanket exemption. Writing for the bench, Justice Datta stated, “In our considered opinion, the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided. Its implementation does not erode—let alone annihilate—the minority character protected under Article 30(1).” The bench argued that there is no inherent conflict between Article 21A (right to education) and Article 30(1), and both can coexist.

The court emphasized that Section 12(1)(c)’s 25% reservation promotes social inclusion and universal education without compromising minority identity. It noted that minority schools already admit students from outside their communities, and doing so under a state-guided framework, supported by reimbursement, ensures financial neutrality. The bench suggested that schools could meet the quota by admitting disadvantaged children from their own minority community, aligning with RTE definitions of “weaker section” or “disadvantaged group.”

Criticizing Pramati, the court warned that the exemption “kindized the very foundation of universal elementary education,” leading to “fragmentation of the common schooling vision” and weakening Article 21A’s inclusivity. It observed that minority status has become a vehicle for evading RTE mandates, reinforcing divides rather than fostering shared learning spaces. The bench remarked, “If the goal is to build an equal and cohesive society, such exemptions move us in the opposite direction.”

The court framed four questions for reconsideration by a larger bench:

1. Was the Pramati ruling correct in granting a blanket exemption?
2. Should Section 12(1)(c) apply to minority schools?
3. Should RTE provisions extend to aided minority schools?
4. Can the entire RTE Act be deemed inapplicable to minority institutions without assessing all its provisions’ impact on Article 30(1)?

TET Ruling and Transitional Measures

On the TET issue, the court held it as a valid requirement under the RTE Act for all schools, except minority institutions pending Pramati’s review. For in-service teachers recruited before RTE with over five years of service remaining, a two-year period was granted to qualify TET, failing which they must quit. Teachers with less than five years to retirement are exempt but require TET for promotions, under the court’s Article 142 powers.

The court clarified that standards like qualified teachers and infrastructure enhance education quality without undermining minority identity, reinforcing RTE’s role in ensuring children’s entitlements.

Expert Reactions and Broader Impact

Educationists have broadly welcomed the court’s stance. Anita Rampal, former Dean of Education at Delhi University, called it “a sound position in line with children’s rights,” noting that sharing classrooms with disadvantaged peers fosters democracy. Latika Gupta emphasized that RTE norms will benefit children in minority schools, creating diverse, inclusive classrooms that enhance educational access and quality.

Govinda cautioned that political considerations have often overshadowed children’s interests, pointing to the crisis of millions shifting to private schools. He stressed that the RTE Act is an experiment in social engineering, designed to diversify classrooms and bridge inequalities. Initial resistance from elite sections, who saw mixing socio-economic groups as a “culture shock,” underscores the Act’s transformative potential to reshape peer dynamics over time.

What’s Next?

The Pramati judgment now awaits review by a larger bench, likely seven judges. If overturned, minority schools may need to comply with RTE provisions, including the 25% quota and quality standards. This could close regulatory loopholes, ensuring no child is left behind and reinforcing education as a public good.

As Gupta noted, “Homogenisation of classrooms is never a good idea… Diversity enhances the quality of education.” With this development, India stands at a crossroads in balancing minority rights with the universal right to education, potentially paving the way for a more inclusive schooling system.

FAQs