Supreme Court to decide if RTE Act covers minority institutions

The Supreme Court directed that a petition seeking clarity on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act be referred to the Chief Justice of India for further instructions.

The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, noted that the court is already hearing a related case on whether the RTE Act applies to minority-run institutions.

The petition, filed by Nitin Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, seeks to determine if schools offering both religious and secular instruction should be covered under the RTE Act.

The plea challenges sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the law, calling them arbitrary and inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, including Article 14, which ensures equality before the law.

It also highlights that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), designed to uphold teaching standards, currently applies only to non-minority schools, creating disparities.

“Petitioner is filing PIL under Article 32 seeking a writ order or direction that the RTE Act and Teacher Eligibility Test shall be uniformly applicable to all schools,” the petition said.

The apex court had previously expressed concern over its 2014 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust judgment, which exempted minority institutions from the RTE Act.

On Sept 1, it referred the matter to a larger bench, warning that the earlier ruling may have “unknowingly jeopardized the very foundation of universal elementary education.”

The court observed that excluding minority schools weakens the inclusivity guaranteed under Article 21A, which mandates free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen.

The RTE Act ensures access to basic facilities such as classrooms, trained teachers, textbooks, uniforms, and midday meals, benefits that many minority schools currently do not provide.

The SC has framed four key questions, including whether its prior exemption of aided and unaided minority institutions under Article 30(1) should be revisited.

It asked the Chief Justice to decide if these issues warrant a detailed hearing by a larger constitutional bench.