Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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.

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)

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:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1293

Cases Referred (39)

Related Judgments

Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust VS State Of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1293

State of Tamil Nadu vs K.Bashiri - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2735

Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha VS State Of Maharashtra - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 465

Sr. S. Arul Ananda Rosi VS Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary, The Department of School Education (C2), Chennai - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3419

ABHYUTTHANAM SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2008

STATE OF U.P. vs ANJUMAN ISHAAT-E-TALEEM TRUST & ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1744

Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune VS Union of India - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1273

State Of U. P. VS Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust - 2026 Supreme(SC) 644

Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Palai and etc. etc. VS State of Kerala - 1990 Supreme(Ker) 216

Huzaifa Khan through their Father Quayum Khan vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 3110