Chhattisgarh High Court Directs State to Formulate Clear EWS Policy for RTE Act Implementation

Chhattisgarh High Court Orders State to Define EWS for Right to Education Act

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – March 26, 2025 – In a significant judgment concerning the Right to Education (RTE) Act, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , has directed the State Government to formulate a clear policy for defining " Economically Weaker Section" (EWS) in the context of RTE Act implementation. The ruling came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by C.V. Bhagvant Rao challenging a state notification that effectively limited EWS status to only those families listed Below Poverty Line (BPL).

Background of the Case

The PIL, WPPIL No. 61 of 2017, was initiated by C.V. Bhagvant Rao , who argued that the State Government's notification dated August 23, 2011, was undermining the spirit of the RTE Act. The petitioner contended that by equating EWS solely with BPL status, the State was creating an unreasonably narrow definition and denying the fundamental right to free education to many children from economically weaker sections who are not categorized as BPL.

The core issue was the interpretation and implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, which mandates private unaided schools to reserve 25% of seats for children from EWS and disadvantaged groups. The petitioner argued that the state's policy deviated from the central government's broader definition of EWS, which often includes families with an annual income below a certain threshold (e.g., Rs. 3 lakhs as per central government housing schemes).

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Devershi Thakur , argued:

• The State's notification unduly restricted the definition of EWS by linking it exclusively to the BPL list, which is outdated and excludes many genuinely economically weaker families.
• This restrictive definition contravenes the objective of the RTE Act and Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education as a fundamental right.
• The State Government does not have the authority to amend the definition of EWS in a way that undermines the central RTE Act framework.
• Other states have adopted more inclusive income-based criteria for defining EWS, referencing examples like Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu.

State's Counsel, Additional Advocate General Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, countered:

• Both the State and Union governments have legislative power over education under the Concurrent List of the Constitution.
• The BPL list serves as a valid mechanism for identifying economically weaker sections.
• Section 35(2) of the RTE Act empowers the State government to issue guidelines for implementing the Act.
• The state's approach is aimed at ensuring that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries and prevent misuse.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The High Court acknowledged the fundamental right to education enshrined in Article 21A and the RTE Act's crucial role in ensuring this right for children, especially those from weaker sections. The court underscored the importance of the "Golden Trinity" of the Constitution – the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles of State Policy – in guiding the state towards social and economic justice.

The bench referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India , (2012) 6 SCC 1, which upheld the constitutionality of the RTE Act and emphasized its objective to remove barriers to education, including financial ones.

In its concluding remarks, the court observed:

> "From the above analysis, we find that there appears to be no clear road map by the State Government on the above subject. As such, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the respondent-State to frame the policy with respect to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education to the children belonging to ‘ Economically Weaker Section’ in order to enable to achieve the spirit and object of the RTE Act as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India in accordance with the law, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today."

Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the PIL by directing the State Government to frame a comprehensive and clear policy defining " Economically Weaker Section" for RTE Act implementation within six months. While not quashing the existing notification immediately, the court's direction necessitates a policy overhaul to better align with the RTE Act's spirit and ensure broader access to education for children from genuinely economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a significant step towards ensuring the effective implementation of the RTE Act in Chhattisgarh. By mandating a clearer and more inclusive EWS policy, the High Court has emphasized the state's responsibility to facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to education for children from economically weaker sections. The forthcoming policy will be crucial in determining how Chhattisgarh broadens the scope of EWS definition beyond the BPL list and ensures that the fundamental right to education reaches a wider section of underprivileged children.