Article 21A Is Not Just A Right In Isolation… It Is The Foundation: Supreme Court Doubts Blanket RTE Exemption For Minority Schools, Sends Issue To Larger Bench

“We… have serious doubts as to whether Pramati was justified in granting a blanket exemption to minority institutions…”, Supreme Court of India in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1063) delivered a significant ruling that questions the correctness of the Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India. Addressing the contentious interface between Article 21A (Right to Free and Compulsory Elementary Education) and Article 30(1) (minority institutions’ rights), the Court referred to a larger bench the broader question whether minority institutions—aided and unaided—can be placed wholly outside the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). While doing so, the bench underscored that most RTE norms are child-centric baseline standards and not ideological impositions, and kept minority institutions temporarily exempt “till such time the reference is decided.”

Multiple appeals from the Bombay and Madras High Courts presented conflicting approaches to the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and the RTE framework. The Bombay High Court had upheld TET as mandatory even for minority institutions, while the Madras High Court—relying on Pramati—held RTE obligations inapplicable to minority schools and struck down State rules that limited TET to direct recruitment. The Union of India also challenged a Madras High Court decision approving appointment in an aided minority school without TET. The Supreme Court tagged these matters and crystallized two principal issues: whether TET can be insisted upon for teachers in minority institutions, and whether in-service teachers appointed pre-RTE must clear TET for promotion.

The Court revisited Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, Pramati, T.M.A. Pai, and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957, testing the RTE’s regulatory standards against Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21A, 29(2), and 30(1). It emphasized that Article 21A’s universal elementary education is structurally distinct from higher education jurisprudence and that Article 30(1) has never been absolute. The Court observed that Pramati’s sweeping exemption rested almost entirely on Section 12(1)(c) (25% entry-level admissions from “weaker sections and disadvantaged groups”), without analyzing other RTE norms like teacher qualifications, infrastructure, child protection and curriculum, and that such a blanket exclusion is “legally suspect and questionable apart from being disproportionate.” The Court noted that Article 29(2)—which binds aided institutions—was not examined in Pramati while deciding the non-applicability of RTE to aided minority schools.

The bench set out a constitutional narrative: the journey from Article 45 to Article 21A, the RTE Act as the “living expression of a long-deferred promise”, and the common schooling vision served by Section 12(1)(c). It noted: “To deny Article 21A its rightful primacy is to reduce it to a skeletal promise—a right without fundamentals.” Stressing that quality education is part of Article 21A, the Court reasoned that reasonable regulation to ensure minimum standards does not annihilate minority character. It added that even Section 12(1)(c) can be harmonized by admitting 25% children from the same minority community if they fall under “weaker section” or “disadvantaged group,” thereby preserving identity while advancing inclusion. Concluding that “we… have serious doubts as to whether Pramati… was justified in granting a blanket exemption”, the Court referred four formulated questions to the Hon’ble CJI for consideration by a larger Bench, including whether Pramati should be reconsidered, the effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2), and whether reading down Section 12(1)(c) could have saved it.

The Court did not overrule Pramati; it doubted its breadth and referred the central questions for authoritative reconsideration. Pending the reference, it directed that RTE compliance continues to bind all “schools” under Section 2(n) except minority institutions, whose status remains governed by Pramati for now. Yet, the Court’s constitutional analysis clearly re-centres Article 21A as a foundational right that must be harmonized—not eclipsed—by Article 30(1).

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025