Admission Under Section 12(1)(c) RTE Act Must Be Treated As A National Mission: Supreme Court Directs States To Frame Binding Regulations For 25% RTE Admissions

“Without Enforceable Rules, The Promise Of Article 21A Will Remain Illusory”, In a path-breaking and policy-shaping judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, in the case of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 10105/2017), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, forcefully reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory mandate of reserving 25% seats in entry-level classes of private unaided neighbourhood schools for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

Holding that the right to free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21A of the Constitution is not merely a formal declaration but a positive, enforceable fundamental right, the Court observed:

“Ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority. Equally, Courts… must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the right.”

High Court’s Blame On Petitioner For Missing Online Procedure Termed Unjust: “Courts Must Provide Relief In Cases Of Denial Of Fundamental Rights”

The case arose from a writ petition filed by a poor parent from Maharashtra whose attempt to secure free education for his children under the 25% RTE quota was rejected on procedural grounds. Though 648 seats were available, and a letter from the local Primary Education Officer had recommended admission, the High Court dismissed the plea, stating the parent had not followed the online procedure.

The Supreme Court held such an approach "unsustainable" in the face of administrative direction and socio-economic vulnerability.

“The standard submission that we hear at the Bar... is that ‘the matter has become infructuous’. Sadly, this is true... However, in order to ensure that this situation shall not revisit parents like the petitioner again and again, we considered it appropriate to take up the case for precedent-making.”

Digital Divide, Language Barriers And Lack Of Helpdesks Are Procedural Barriers Denying The Right To Education

The Court, assisted by amicus curiae Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, took the opportunity to examine the structural failures in the implementation of Section 12(1)(c). It noted systemic issues such as digital illiteracy, language obstacles, lack of transparency, absence of grievance redressal mechanisms, and no assistance to poor parents in navigating the online admission process.

The judgment highlighted that while the law grants a right, the implementation process actively excludes the very people it aims to protect. The Court declared:

“The online application process to access the Right under Section 12 ignores the prevalent digital illiteracy... lack of information about availability of seats, absence of transparency... are some of the issues highlighted.”

Five Duty Bearers Identified For Realising Article 21A: Government, Local Authority, School, Parent And Teacher

The Court undertook an extensive doctrinal analysis of Article 21A and the RTE Act, classifying it as a positive fundamental right supported by co-relative duties. It identified five constitutional and statutory duty bearers:

1. Appropriate Government – duty to establish neighbourhood schools (Sec 6 RTE Act)
2. Local Authority – duty to ensure enrolment and maintain records (Sec 9)
3. Neighbourhood School – duty to reserve 25% for disadvantaged groups (Sec 12)
4. Parents/Guardians – duty under Article 51A(k) and Section 10 RTE Act
5. Elementary School Teachers – entrusted with the constitutional vision of nation-building through inclusive education

The Court lamented that the lack of enforceable rules and divergent practices among States and Union Territories have rendered Section 12(1)(c) ineffective, despite its transformative promise.

“Fraternity Is Not A Token Ideal”: Section 12(1)(c) Seen As A Constitutional Tool For Social Integration

In a landmark articulation of constitutional values, the Court anchored its interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) not merely in education policy, but in the Preamble’s promises of equality, dignity and fraternity. The Bench elaborated:

“The 25% inclusion under Section 12, in unaided neighbourhood schools, is not an isolated welfare measure but a vehicle through which the constitutional commitment to fraternity... is sought to be realised.”

The Court underlined that early integration of children from different socio-economic backgrounds can break caste and class barriers, foster equality of opportunity, and enable children to “lose suspect identities”.

Citing the Kothari Commission and policy notes from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Court reiterated that the common neighbourhood school system is a deliberate constitutional strategy, not merely an administrative convenience.

NCPCR SOPs Not Binding: States Directed To Frame Rules Under Section 38 Of RTE Act

While acknowledging the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) as a progressive step, the Court noted that in the absence of binding subordinate legislation, such guidelines lack enforceability. It warned:

“Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object of Article 21A and the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) would be a dead letter.”

Accordingly, the Court invoked Section 38 of the RTE Act, which empowers the Government to make rules, and directed all States and Union Territories to formulate uniform, enforceable rules for effective implementation of the 25% mandate.

Supreme Court Issues Multi-Pronged Directions: NCPCR Made Party, Rules To Be Drafted, Monitoring To Continue

In a rare exercise of continuing mandamus, the Court not only retained the Special Leave Petition on file but also issued a series of follow-up directions:

• NCPCR to be impleaded as a respondent, and tasked with monitoring compliance.
• All States and Union Territories to frame enforceable rules in consultation with NCPCR, State Commissions, and Advisory Councils.
• NCPCR to file an affidavit by March 31, 2026, detailing the compliance status.
• Matter to be listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026.

The Court categorically stated:

“We direct the appropriate authorities to prepare and issue, in consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs... necessary rules and regulations... for implementing the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.”

This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court elevates Section 12(1)(c) from a statutory benevolence to a constitutional imperative, cementing its place as a tool for democratising education and integrating society. The ruling not only protects the rights of poor parents like the petitioner, but also sets in motion a national roadmap to ensure that no child is denied quality education due to poverty or lack of procedural literacy. With strong directions to States and institutional monitoring by NCPCR, the Court has effectively converted passive law into actionable governance.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2026