In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional promise of inclusive and equitable education, the Supreme Court of India has issued comprehensive directions to ensure the effective implementation of the 25% reservation mandate under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court directed States and Union Territories to frame detailed rules and establish transparent admission mechanisms for children belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG).
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45], underscoring that earnest implementation of the RTE mandate has the extraordinary capacity to transform India’s social structure.
Constitutional Vision Behind Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act obligates private unaided non-minority schools to reserve 25% of seats at the entry level for children from EWS and DG categories, providing them free education till completion of elementary schooling.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the concept of “neighbourhood schools” under the RTE Act is intended to *break barriers of caste, class, and gender, advancing the constitutional objective of *substantive equality under Article 14 and fulfilling the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution.
Justice Narasimha, authoring the judgment, observed:
“The obligation of a neighbourhood school to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections… has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative.”
Lack of Subordinate Legislation: A Major Obstacle
The Court noted that despite the RTE Act being in force for over a decade, many States and UTs have failed to frame adequate rules under Section 38, leading to ambiguity, inconsistent implementation, and denial of benefits to eligible children.
The Bench warned that without clear, enforceable subordinate legislation, the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) risks becoming a “dead letter”, complicating judicial review and undermining the right to education.
Accordingly, the Court directed appropriate governments to frame and notify rules in consultation with:
- National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR),
- State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights,
- National and State Advisory Councils.
NCPCR Impleaded; Monitoring Role Strengthened
Recognising its statutory role under Section 31 of the RTE Act, the Supreme Court impleaded the NCPCR and directed it to:
- Collate information on rules framed by States/UTs,
- Monitor implementation through its Standard Operating Procedure (SoP),
- File an affidavit on compliance by March 31, 2026.
The Court also stated that it would continue monitoring compliance, signalling judicial seriousness in enforcing the RTE mandate.
Key Issues Identified by the Court
Based on joint suggestions by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeeshan and ASG Aishwarya Bhati, the Court highlighted systemic failures including:
- Absence of dedicated online admission portals,
- Lack of public awareness among parents,
- Language barriers,
- Opaque seat availability,
- Arbitrary rejection of applications,
- Absence of grievance redressal mechanisms,
- Discrimination against admitted children.
Nine Core Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
To address these challenges, the Court issued detailed directions, including:
- Online Portals: States must establish centralized, transparent admission portals.
- Multilingual Access: Information must be available in Hindi, English, and the local language.
- Public Awareness: Admission procedures must be widely publicised.
- Seat Transparency: Schools must disclose available EWS/DG seats in advance.
- Help-Desks: Physical and digital help-desks must assist parents during applications.
- Defect Correction Window: Applications should not be summarily rejected without an opportunity to rectify defects.
- Grievance Redressal: Complaints must be resolved within strict timelines.
- Reasoned Denial: Any denial of admission must be recorded with reasons and reviewed within 72 hours.
- Anti-Discrimination Training: Teachers and staff must be trained to ensure social inclusion.
NCPCR’s Three-Stage SOP Endorsed
The Court approved the NCPCR’s SOP divided into three stages:
1. Preparatory Stage
- Finalisation of seats within 20 working days,
- Wide advertisement of admission schedules,
- Clear eligibility criteria and document requirements,
- Centralised online systems with offline assistance.
2. Application & Selection Stage
- Free help-desks at schools and local authorities,
- Transparent draw of lots,
- Scrutiny by zonal/local teams (not private schools),
- Defect correction timelines,
- Accessible dispute resolution mechanisms.
3. Post-Admission Stage
- Speaking orders for selection outcomes,
- No further scrutiny of admitted children,
- Timely reimbursement of per-child expenditure,
- Monitoring of vacant reserved seats,
- Post-admission inclusion measures.
Background of the Case
The petition arose from a 2016 Bombay High Court judgment, which denied relief to a parent who failed to apply online under the 25% quota. While the Supreme Court noted that individual relief had become infructuous after eight years, it chose to address the larger systemic issue to prevent recurrence of such injustices.
The Court clarified that its intervention was precedent-setting, aimed at strengthening the enforcement framework of the RTE Act nationwide.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling marks a watershed moment in the enforcement of the Right to Education Act, shifting focus from mere statutory existence to effective implementation. By mandating rule-making, transparency, accountability, and continuous monitoring, the Supreme Court has reinforced education as a tool of social transformation, not charity.
If implemented earnestly, the judgment has the potential to ensure that children of judges, professionals, street vendors, and daily wage workers study together, advancing the constitutional ideals of equality, fraternity, and dignity.
Case Details
- Case: Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- SLP (C): No. 10105 of 2017
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 45
- Next Hearing: April 6, 2026
Also Read
Can Voting Rights Be Suspended Pending Citizenship Decision? Supreme Court Questions ECI
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
