1. Appeals challenging High Court orders regarding the applicability of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and RTE Act to minority institutions and mandatory qualifications for teacher promotion. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2025, Civil Appeal Nos.1364-1367 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1404 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1395 of 2025, Civil Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1405 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1403 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1398 of 2025, Civil Appeal Nos.1406-1408 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1393 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1399 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1391 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1401 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2025, Civil Appeal Nos.1409-1410 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.6367 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.6365 of 2025, Civil Appeal No.6366 of 2025 and Civil Appeal No.6364 of 2025
Decided on : 01-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Shankaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. K.radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Riddi Bose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. S. Rajnarayan, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Krishan Kant Kumar, Adv. Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrma Thanvi, Adv. Mr./Ms. Oorjaswi Goswani, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv. Mr. Rahul Joshi, AOR Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mrs. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Vinamra Kopariha, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar,, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Sai Shashank V,, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Gautam, Adv. Dr. G Babu, Adv. Mr. Mugundhan, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Ms. Madhumeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Mr. Pratyaksh Semwal, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR Ms. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Ms. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv. Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv. Ms. Tanisha Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Palak Mathur, Adv. Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Shankaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. K.radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Riddi Bose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. S. Rajnarayan, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Krishan Kant Kumar, Adv. Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrma Thanvi, Adv. Mr./Ms. Oorjaswi Goswani, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv. Mr. Rahul Joshi, AOR Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mrs. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Vinamra Kopariha, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar,, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Sai Shashank V,, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Gautam, Adv. Dr. G Babu, Adv. Mr. Mugundhan, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Ms. Madhumeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Mr. Pratyaksh Semwal, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR Ms. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Ms. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv. Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv. Ms. Tanisha Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Palak Mathur, Adv. Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.
The Court referred the blanket exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act to a larger bench for reconsideration. It held that TET is a mandatory minimum qualification for the appointment and promotion of teachers in non-minority schools, including in-service teachers, to ensure quality elementary education under Article 21A.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21A and 30(1) - Right to Education - The constitutional journey of Article 21A ensures free and compulsory elementary education for children aged 6 to 14 years. The RTE Act outlines the responsibilities of educational institutions and its provisions apply to minority institutions. The court questions the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust which exempted minority institutions from the RTE Act, suggesting it may undermine the right to education for children, highlighting the need for regulations ensuring quality education. (Paras 55, 186, 217)
(B) Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Requirement for promotion and appointment - The court holds that TET is a mandatory qualification for both initial recruitment and promotion of teachers in alignment with the aims of the RTE Act. (Paras 164-220)
(C) Minority Institutions - Regulatory Framework - The judgment discusses the balance between minority rights under Article 30(1) and the state's duty to provide quality education, arguing both can coexist. The exemption of minority schools from RTE provisions raises concerns for inclusivity and standards in education. (Paras 142-174)
Facts of the case:
Appeals are from various parties contesting the applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions and the requirements for the promotion of teachers appointed prior to the implementation of RTE Act. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The institution’s minority status does not exempt it from engagement in quality educational mandates under the RTE Act. The court calls into question the full exemption of minority institutions from RTE provisions, suggesting a need for reevaluation. (Paras 170-188)
Issues: The applicability of the RTE Act to minority educational institutions, the constitutional validity of requiring TET, and how minority character intersects with educational obligations under the RTE Act were central to the court’s deliberation. (Paras 208-210)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to education under Article 21A is paramount, and while minority institutions can maintain the ethos of their identity, they must adhere to basic educational standards established by the RTE Act. The requirement of TET as a qualification upholds necessary educational standards without undermining the minority character. (Paras 173-174)
Result: Appeals partially allowed; TET remains a requisite for teacher qualifications and decisions regarding appointments reiterated. (Paras 217-219)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- education law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Minority institutions claim exemption under Article 30(1); the State and teachers argue TET is a mandatory minimum qualification for recruitment and promotion under Article 21A. (Para 55 , 56 )
3. Blanket exemption of minority schools from the RTE Act may jeopardize universal elementary education and quality standards, necessitating a harmonious interpretation of Articles 21A and 30(1). (Para 91 , 121 , 129 , 172 , 177 )
4. The right to administer minority institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and does not grant immunity from reasonable regulations ensuring educational quality and standards. (Para 136 , 149 , 176 )
5. Reference made to reconsider Pramati judgment; TET held mandatory for non-minority schools, with specific timelines and Article 142 exemptions for in-service teachers. (Para 208 , 214 , 216 , 217 )
6. Does the RTE Act apply to minority educational institutions?
While the Pramati decision previously exempted them, the Court expressed doubt, stating that Article 30(1) does not grant blanket immunity from reasonable regulations aimed at maintaining educational standards and fulfilling the fundamental right to education under Article 21A. (Para 136 , 177 )
7. Is qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) mandatory for the promotion of in-service teachers?
Yes. The term appointment in Section 23 of the RTE Act includes promotion. TET is a mandatory minimum qualification necessary for both initial appointment and promotion to ensure uniform quality of education. (Para 169 , 194 , 201 )
8. How should the conflict between the right to education (Article 21A) and minority rights (Article 30(1)) be resolved?
They must be interpreted harmoniously. Article 30(1) preserves cultural identity but cannot override the national interest or the State's duty to ensure quality elementary education for all children. (Para 171 , 176 )
9. Does the 25% admission quota under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act annihilate the minority character of an institution?
Not necessarily. The quota can be fulfilled by admitting disadvantaged children from the minority community itself, thereby serving the underprivileged within the community without eroding the institution's minority character. (Para 180 , 183 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
| INDEX | |
| I. INTRODUCTION | |
| II. ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPECTIVE HIGH COURTS, IMPUGNED IN THE APPEALS | |
| IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN THE LEAD APPEAL BEING Civil Appeal No. 1385 OF 2025 AND Civil Appeal No. 1386 OF 2025 | |
| IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN Civil Appeal Nos. 6365 - 6367 OF 2025 | |
| IMPUGNED ORDER IN Civil Appeal Nos. 1364 - 1367 OF 2025 | |
| IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN Civil Appeal Nos. 1389, 1390, 1391, 1393, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1401, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410 OF 2025 | |
| IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN Civil Appeal No. 6364 OF 2025 | |
| SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENTS | |
| III. PREVIOUS DECISIONS CONCERNING THE RTE ACT | |
| SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF RAJASTHAN | |
| Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India | |
| IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES | |
| V. THE ACTS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS | |
| VI. ANALYSIS AND REASONS | |
| A. FROM PROMISE TO RIGHT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL JOURNEY OF ARTICLE 21A AND THE RIGHT TO ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN INDIA | |
| B. BREATHING LIFE INTO THE PROMISE: THE RTE ACT AND THE REALISATION OF ARTICLE 21A | |
| C. THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOAL OF UNIVERSAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND COMMON SCHOOLING SYSTEM | |
| D. SECTION 12(1)(C), MINORITY INSTITUTIONS AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CONUNDRUM | |
| E. THE COST OF EXCLUSION: CONSEQUENCES OF EXEMPTING MINORITY INSTITUTIONS FROM THE AMBIT OF THE RTE ACT | |
| F. DOES ARTICLE 30(1) REALLY ENVISAGE BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM ALL FORMS OF REGULATION TO MINORITY INSTITUTIONS? | |
| G. DOES THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK UNDER THE RTE ACT, FLOWING FROM ARTICLE 21A, CLASSIFY AS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ARTICLE 19(6)? | |
| H. MINORITY INSTITUTIONS AND THE SHARED CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 21A | |
| I. TEACHERS’ ROLE IN IMPARTING QUALITY EDUCATION | |
| J. APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-SERVICE TEACHERS APPOINTED PRIOR TO 2009 AND REQUIREMENT OF TET QUALIFICATION FOR PROMOTION OF TEACHERS | |
| K. OUR FINDINGS | |
| ON PERCEIVED CONFLICT BETWEEN ARTICLES 21A AND 30(1) AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RTE ACT TO MINORITY INSTITUTIONS | |
| ON APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 12(1)(C), RTE ACT TO MINORITY INSTITUTIONS | |
| L. SUMMARY OF OUR VIEWS ON PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST | |
| M. REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATION – WHETHER APPLICABLE TO IN SERVICE TEACHERS? | |
| N. ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS VERSUS ELIGIBILITY | |
| VII. ORDER OF REFERENCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY A LARGER BENCH | |
| VIII. ORDER ON APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-SERVICE TEACHERS | |
I. INTRODUCTION
1. These civil appeals challenge judgments/orders of two of the three chartered high courts of the nation delivered/made on multiple proceedings instituted before them. Inter alia, questions as regards applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test1[TET] to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is a mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, were under consideration in such proceedings. In brief, the appellants before this Court are:
a. Minority educational institutions who are aggrieved because they are not being allowed to recruit teachers who have not qualified in the TET;
b. Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also minority institutions, whether aided or unaided; and
c. Individual teachers, who were appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20092[RTE Act] being enforced, claiming that the TET qualification cannot be made a mandatory requirement for the purposes of their promotion.
2. The present set of appeals raise questions of seminal importance. Vide order dated 28th January, 2025 in the erstwhile lead matter, viz. Civil Appeal No.1384 of 20253[The Director of School Ed
