When a State forwards a selected child's name to a neighbourhood school, can the school refuse admission?

Delay condoned.

This is yet another occasion for us to reiterate the constitutional and statutory obligation of a ‘neighbourhood school’ to give admission to students forwarded by the State Government without any delay. Such an obligation is consistent with the constitutional philosophy 1, Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 2, as well as Rule 8 of the U.P Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 3. For the reasons to follow, we have affirmed the Jayant Kumar Arora 1 Article 21A. direction of the High Court to grant admission to the respondent without any delay.

The facts leading to filing of the present Special Leave Petition are that the respondent no. 5 (‘student’) applied to the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, for admission into pre-primary class in a neighbourhood school in accordance with the procedure prescribed under UP RTE Rules, 2011 for the year 2024-25. The student was duly selected, and the published list containing her name was sent to the petitioner school for admission into the pre-primary class.

On being selected and allotted to the petitioner school, the student approached the school for completing the admission formalities, but she was neither given admission nor permitted to attend the classes on the ground that there is some uncertainty about the student’s eligibility. Under these circumstances the student preferred a writ petition4 praying for a direction to the State and other authorities for granting admission into the petitioner school. High Court allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that schools cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken by the State Government. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows:

There is no gainsaying in stating that the right to education, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, will remain an empty promise if the mandate of the RTE Act, 2009 is not worked out in its letter and spirit. Under Section 38 of the RTE Act, 2009, States are empowered to notify rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. Exercising this power, the State of Uttar Pradesh notified UP RTE Rules, 2011, containing various measures for admissions to ‘neighbourhood’ schools – encompassing regulations from the stage of admission to completion of elementary education.

The process of admission of children and reimbursement of their education is governed by Rule 8 of the UP RTE Rules, 2011, which is extracted below for ready reference:

The mandate of the above Rule is clear. Once the government assesses an application for admission under the 2009 Act, the school shall proceed and be bound by other provisions as laid from time to time. The limited window for the school to reconsider the government’s decision is a conscious choice of the State to avoid delays in securing the children's right to education.

This regulatory framework finds its normative strength in the neighbourhood school concept enshrined under the RTE Act, 2009 5, which is a deliberate statutory conception to operationalise equality of 5 See, generally, Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009. status and social integration during a child’s formative years. By mandating that schools admit children from weaker and disadvantaged sections to the extent of at least twenty-five percent of class strength, the law seeks to transform the social structure of our society. This model envisages the school as a common civic space that breaks down entrenched barriers of caste, class, and gender, thereby advancing substantive social justice.

The obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of our society, to the extent of twenty-five percent of the class strength, under Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India, but also a substantive measure in securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of status’. The constitutional declaration of the right under Article 21A, followed by the statutory mandate under Section 3 of the Act for free and compulsory elementary education can be realised only with effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. Ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority. Equally, Courts, be it constitutional or civil, must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the right.

In Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.6, it was held that the consequence of identifying the right to elementary education as a positive right is the recognition of co-relative duties and identification of five duty bearers, being (i) the appropriate government, (ii) the local authority, (iii) the neighbourhood schools, (iv) the parents/guardians, and

It is necessary to underscore two foundational constitutional values that Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 is designed to articulate and secure. The first, in unequivocal terms, mandates that not less than twenty-five percent of the strength of an entry-level class shall be reserved for and filled by children belonging to “weaker sections” and “disadvantaged groups”, who are thereby guaranteed access to free elementary education. The second is that such children are to be admitted to unaided schools in their neighbourhood, thereby embedding within the statutory framework the principle that the constitutional promise of education under Article 21A is to be realised through common local schools rather than segregated or parallel systems. The legislative choice to implement the right to free and compulsory education through neighbourhood schools is not merely administrative; it is a deliberate constitutional strategy to operationalise equality of status, dignity, and social integration among children in their formative years.15 14 Para 6.5 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra). 15 Para 7 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

The mandate under Section 12 of the Act must be enforced with conviction and commitment. We have to ensure admission of at least twenty-five percent of class strength in unaided schools with children of weaker and disadvantaged groups. This is certainly a national mission. Effective implementation of the statutory policy will be transformative and, in this regard, each one of us, be it the institution or an individual, be it the Central or the State Governments, Advisory Councils or Commissions are duty bearers. The most important role is of the neighbourhood schools. In this mission, the judiciary also bears the burden to ensure that the process of admission is easily accessible, effective and efficient. Court must also ensure that judicial remedies against inaction or inefficiency are redressed effectively and expeditiously.16

Effective implementation requires that schools publish available seats well in advance and that any denial of admission be recorded with specific reasons, which must be reviewed by educational authorities within strict timelines to ensure accountability. Ultimately, the success of the RTE legislation depends on ensuring that children's participation in the classroom is evident and meaningful.

It is in the above light we find that for schools like the petitioner that may have some disagreement with the selection by the Government, can 16 Para 10 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra). make representation to the concerned authority, but they ought not wait for the outcome of such a representation and are mandated to grant admission to the student whose name finds mention in list forwarded to the school in the interregnum. This immediacy is essential to actualise the promise of Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.

No orders as to costs. ………………………………....J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] ………………………………....J. [ALOK ARADHE] NEW DELHI; APRIL 28, 2026.