Bombay High Court Invalidates Maharashtra’s 1 km Rule for School Admissions: No Subordinate Legislation Can Override the Parent Act

Court strikes down the restriction on private unaided schools’ admission obligations, affirming the RTE Act’s supremacy and intent.

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court invalidated a provision in the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2024, which restricted the obligation of private unaided schools to admit students from disadvantaged groups if government or aided schools were available within a 1 km radius. The bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, ruled that the provision exceeded the legislative intent of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and violated Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

The petitions, including Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 61 of 2024 and others, challenged the amendment to the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. The controversial proviso added to Rule 4(5) specified that private unaided schools would only be obligated to admit 25% of students from disadvantaged and weaker sections if no government or aided schools were available within a 1 km radius. The petitioners argued that this amendment diluted the provisions of the RTE Act, which mandates such admissions irrespective of the presence of other schools.

The court emphasized that the RTE Act’s mandate for unaided private schools to admit 25% of students from disadvantaged groups is unconditional and cannot be overridden by state rules. “No subordinate legislation can be permitted to exceed what has been provided for in the parent Act,” the bench noted.

The bench critically analyzed the legislative framework of the RTE Act, highlighting that the Act does not stipulate any distance condition for admissions under Section 12(1)©. The court referenced previous judgments, including those from the Allahabad High Court, which reinforced the unconditional nature of the admission mandate.

Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked, “The impugned proviso appended to Rule 4(5) of Principal Rules 2011…is ultra vires the RTE Act 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the impugned proviso is declared to be void”. The judgment underscored that any rule conflicting with the fundamental objectives of the RTE Act must be invalidated.

The Bombay High Court’s judgment sends a strong message about the supremacy of central legislation over state amendments in matters of education rights. By declaring the Maharashtra proviso void, the court has reaffirmed the unconditional right of children from disadvantaged groups to access education in private unaided schools, regardless of the proximity of government or aided institutions. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future educational policies and the implementation of the RTE Act across India.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2024

Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.