Must a court order a child's re-admission into a school where his father is in prolonged conflict with the management and staff?

No. Forcing a seven-year-old child into the centre of ongoing litigation between his father and the school creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment, and courts must avoid using a child as a tug-of-war rope in adult disagreements; the child's welfare and best interest is the guiding consideration.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — s.16 — s.2(n)(iv) — s.12(c) — Transfer Certificate — Best interest of child — Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — s.16 — No detention or expulsion — Not attracted where school issued Transfer Certificate after promotion — Held: Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 protects a child from arbitrary expulsion, physical punishment and mental harassment, but does not assist where the school allowed the child to complete the academic year and issued a Transfer Certificate certifying he was promoted to the Second Standard. (¶8) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Welfare of child — Litigation between parent and school — Child not a tug-of-war rope — Held further: Where the relationship between the school management and a parent has broken down into deep hostility, forcing a child into the centre of that litigation creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment, and courts must avoid using a child as a tug-of-war rope in adult disagreements. (¶9, 10) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Re-admission — Factual position on schooling cannot be altered to keep litigation alive — Held further: A parent cannot alter the factual position regarding a child's schooling status to keep litigation alive, and compelling re-admission into an environment fraught with disputes between the father and the school management is not beneficial for the minor child; writ appeal dismissed and the order dismissing the writ petition confirmed. (¶11, 12)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of 2026:MHC:3021 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India