Law Maker

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 12 April 2012 · 3 judges

Overruled in whole or in part by Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014), which says: “the majority judgment of this Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. (supra) insofar as it holds that the 2009 Act is applicable to aided minority schools is not correct.”

The majority upheld the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, including the 25% admission requirement in Section 12(1)(c), for unaided non-minority schools, but held that the Act does not apply to unaided minority schools.

Facts

Article 21A, inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, requires the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as it may by law determine. Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, in force from 1 April 2010. Section 12(1)(c) obliges every recognised school, including an unaided school, to admit in Class I at least 25% of the class strength from children of weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood and give them free education till completion, with reimbursement under Section 12(2). The Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan and other private schools filed writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 12(1)(c) and related provisions as violating their rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1).

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether the 2009 Act, and in particular Section 12(1)(c), is valid in its application to unaided non-minority schools under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 19(6).
  2. Whether the decisions in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar bar such an obligation on unaided schools.
  3. Whether the 2009 Act can apply to unaided and aided minority schools protected by Article 30(1).

What the Court held

  • Article 21A places the primary obligation on the State but leaves the manner to be determined by law. The State may discharge it through its own schools, aided schools or unaided private schools, so long as the law does not transgress any other constitutional limitation.
  • Section 12(1)(c), with reimbursement under Section 12(2), is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) on the right of unaided non-minority schools under Article 19(1)(g). Earmarking seats for children facing financial barriers also satisfies Article 14.
  • The principles in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar were applied to professional and higher education, where merit counts; they do not apply to admission of a child to Class I. Those cases did not consider Article 21A or the 2009 Act.
  • The Act, in particular Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3), infringes Article 30(1) for unaided minority schools, and by severability it does not apply to them. It is valid for aided minority schools, which are subject to Article 29(2).
  • The judgment operates from the academic year 2012-13, and earlier admissions by unaided minority schools are not reopened. The Court recommended guidelines under Section 35 clarifying that the Act applies to day scholars and not to boarders.

Why it matters

The majority upholds the 25% quota for disadvantaged children in private unaided non-minority schools as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), reading fundamental rights in the light of the directive principles. It distinguishes T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar as cases on professional and higher education, and holds that unaided minority schools are outside the Act because of Article 30(1).

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Thus, the primary obligation to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the specified age is on the State. However, the manner in which this obligation will be discharged by the State has been left to the State to determine by law. The State may do so through its own schools or through aided schools or through private schools, so long as the law made in this regard does not transgress any other constitutional limitation.”
S.H. Kapadia, CJIPage 25 of the judgment
“For the above reasons, since the Article 19(1)(g) right is not an absolute right as Article 30(1), the 2009 Act cannot be termed as unreasonable. To put an obligation on the unaided non-minority school to admit 25% children in class I under Section 12(1)(c) cannot be termed as an unreasonable restriction. Such a law cannot be said to transgress any constitutional limitation. The object of the 2009 Act is to remove the barriers faced by a child who seeks admission to class I and not to restrict the freedom under Article 19(1)(g).”
S.H. Kapadia, CJIPage 18 of the judgment
“On reading T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar in proper perspective, it becomes clear that the said principles have been applied in the context of professional/ higher education where merit and excellence have to be given due weightage and which tests do not apply in cases where a child seeks admission to class I and when the impugned Section 12(1)(c) seeks to remove the financial obstacle.”
S.H. Kapadia, CJIPage 32 of the judgment
“Reservations of 25% in such unaided minority schools result in changing the character of the schools if right to establish and administer such schools flows from the right to conserve the language, script or culture, which right is conferred on such unaided minority schools.”
S.H. Kapadia, CJIPage 37 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. U.O.I.
Case
Writ Petition (C) No. 95 of 2010 with connected Writ Petitions
Decided
12 April 2012
Bench
S.H. Kapadia, CJI, Swatanter Kumar, J, K.S. Radhakrishnan, J
Opinions
Majority 2:1. Opinion by S.H. Kapadia, CJI for himself and Swatanter Kumar, J. K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. dissented in part, holding that Article 21A and the Act cannot be enforced against unaided minority and non-minority schools and reading down Section 12(1)(c) for both.