Private Unaided Schools Not 'Local Authorities', Teachers Can't Be Compulsorily Deployed For Census Duties: Bombay High Court

"Private unaided and private unaided minority schools are not and cannot be brought within the ambit of a 'local authority' so as to attract the compulsory obligations contemplated under section 4A of the Census Act," Bombay High Court, in a significant interim ruling, held that private unaided and minority educational institutions do not fall within the definition of a 'local authority' and therefore cannot be compelled to deploy their teaching staff for census duties.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Gautam A. Ankhad and Justice Sandesh D. Patil observed that neither the provisions of the Census Act, 1948, nor the Census Rules, 1990, expressly cast any statutory obligation upon such schools to make available their staff for the decennial census.

The Petitioner associations, representing over 500 private unaided schools in Maharashtra, challenged several communications and appointment orders issued by Municipal Corporations and Census Officers. These orders sought to compulsorily deploy private school teachers as enumerators and supervisors for the 2026 Census. The Petitioners approached the court seeking interim protection after the authorities initiated coercive steps, including show-cause notices and threats of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) against staff members for non-compliance.

The primary question before the court was whether private unaided and minority schools fall within the ambit of a "local authority" under Section 4A of the Census Act, 1948. The court was also called upon to determine if Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), provides a substantive power to the State to compulsorily requisition private school teachers for non-educational purposes like census operations.

Private Schools Do Not Constitute A 'Local Authority' Under Census Act

The court analyzed Section 4A of the Census Act, which mandates that every "local authority" must make its staff available for census duties. While the Census Act does not define the term, the bench referred to Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines a local authority as a Municipal Committee, District Board, or other authority entrusted with the control of a municipal or local fund.

The bench observed that private unaided schools cannot be brought within this definition. The court noted that these institutions are managed independently and do not handle municipal or local funds. Therefore, the compulsory obligations contemplated under the Census Act for local authorities do not apply to the Petitioners' member schools.

"The private unaided and private unaided minority schools are not and cannot be brought within the ambit of a 'local authority' so as to attract the compulsory obligations contemplated under section 4A of the Census Act."

Section 27 Of RTE Act Is Not An Independent Source Of Power

The State government argued that Section 27 of the RTE Act expressly permits the deployment of teachers for census duties. However, the court rejected this contention, clarifying that Section 27 merely carves out exceptions to the general prohibition against deploying teachers for non-educational tasks. It does not act as a standalone provision granting the State power to requisition staff in the absence of an enabling provision in the parent statute.

The court emphasized that the RTE Act is a child-centric legislation aimed at protecting the educational interests of children. It noted that any additional duties imposed on teachers must be supported by statutory rules. The bench remarked that no rule framed under the RTE Act has been brought to its notice that authorizes the compulsory deployment of private school teachers for census work.

"Section 27 merely carves out exceptions to the general prohibition against deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes. The said provision cannot be construed as an independent source of substantive power authorizing compulsory requisition of teachers."

Rule 3 Of Census Rules Must Be Read Contextually

The Respondents relied on Rule 3 of the Census Rules, which mentions "Teachers" as a category of persons who can be appointed as enumerators. The court, however, applied the principle of ejusdem generis, noting that the other categories listed in the rule—such as District Collectors and Tehsildars—are all government or public officers.

The bench held that the term "teachers" in Rule 3 must, prima facie, be construed as referring to those employed in government or aided institutions. The court warned that a literal interpretation of "any person" in the rules could lead to an absurdity where independent professionals like doctors or advocates are compulsorily requisitioned, which is not the intent of the Act.

"The expression 'teachers' appearing at serial no.5 would, prima facie, have to be construed ejusdem generis as referring to teachers employed in Government or aided institutions."

Deployment Of Staff Impairs Students' Right To Education

The court took note of data provided by the Petitioners showing that in several schools, nearly the entire teaching staff had been requisitioned. For instance, in one Mumbai school, all 133 teachers were appointed as census officers. The bench observed that such large-scale deployment would inevitably disrupt academic activities and impair the students' right to uninterrupted education.

The bench concluded that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the schools, as the census exercise can still be undertaken through governmental machinery, local authorities, or aided institutions. Consequently, the court stayed the operation of the impugned appointment orders and restrained the authorities from taking any coercive steps against the teachers.

"This will disrupt the regular academic activities and impair the right of students to uninterrupted education. Hence, interim protection cannot be denied."

The High Court granted interim relief by staying all notices and appointment orders issued to the teachers of the member schools of the Petitioner associations. The court clarified that these observations are prima facie in nature and are confined to the consideration of interim relief. The matter has been posted for final disposal on July 31, 2026.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2026