Allahabad High Court dismisses petitions against Uttar Pradesh school merger plan

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to merge low-enrollment primary and upper primary schools under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, dismissing legal challenges filed by over 50 students.

On July 7, Justice Pankaj Bhatia ruled that the pairing of schools does not infringe upon the constitutional right to education under Article 21-A or violate the Right to Education (RTE) Act and associated rules.

The court was responding to two writ petitions filed by students from Gautam Buddh Nagar through their parents, opposing the state’s move to merge 105 schools.

Petitioners argued that the June 16 government order, followed by a circular on June 24, would force young children to travel over 1 kilometer to school, breaching Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011.

They claimed the move would result in the effective closure of village schools and deny children access to neighborhood education.

Counsel Dr LP Mishra contended that the policy violated Section 6 of the RTE Act, which mandates a school in any habitation with no existing institution within a 1-kilometer radius and a minimum population of 300.

Another advocate, Gaurav Mehrotra, questioned the legal validity of the order, saying, “The fundamental rights cannot be amended except in accordance with law and certainly not through the executive instructions.”

In response, Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia defended the policy as a rational step aligned with NEP 2020.

He pointed out that 58 of the merged schools had zero students, and many others had poor enrollment and distorted student-teacher ratios.

“Even after the paring, the state government is bound to ensure that free and compulsory education is provided to all children,” he said.

He further asserted that the Additional Chief Secretary had the authority to issue the order and that petitioners had provided no data proving the merger would deny education under Article 21-A.

The court rejected claims that the policy was arbitrary. It noted that Rule 4(2) of the RTE Rules allows flexibility when transportation or other facilities are provided, even if the school exceeds the 1 or 3 kilometer distance norms.

Justice Bhatia observed that the NEP 2020 promotes the rationalization of small schools that are economically inefficient and administratively challenging.

He also pointed out that the petitioners had not challenged the policy framework of the NEP itself.

The court added that implementing a rule that required one school per 300 residents within a 1-kilometer range would mean building around 8 lakh schools across Uttar Pradesh, which has a population of approximately 24 crore, a proposition it described as unworkable.

On the broader policy interpretation, the court stated that Rule 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3) collectively require the state to provide education facilities as close as practicable or, alternatively, support such as transportation when proximity is not feasible.

While dismissing the petitions, the court directed authorities to ensure that no child is left out of the education system.

“It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps that are necessary shall be taken... in accordance with law,” the order said.