SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 644

DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. P.D. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Kristen Sleeth, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Ms. Lubna Naaz, AOR Mr. P. Yobin, Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Debranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Gouranga Debnath, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Ms. Nisstha Balodia, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. K. K. Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Nilesh Yadav, A.A.G. Mr. D.s.parmar, A.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Yasir Saifi, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Amit Balasaheb Thorat, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR Mr. Suryadev Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Mr. Sekshan Singh, Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR Ms. Lakshmi Kg, Adv. Ms. Tualia Rehman, Adv. Mr. Antony Davis, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Baibhav Roy, Adv. Mr. Md Shah Minhajuddin, Adv. Mr. Md Adil Khan, Adv. Mr. Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR Mr. Subhash Chandran K.r, AOR Mr. Anirudh Kp, Adv. Mr. Bineesh K, Adv. M/s Krs Associates, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Devi Prasad Semwal, Adv. Mr. Shreyansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Saif Rizvi, Adv. Ms. Shweta, Adv. Ms. Shaiffy Arora, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar Seth, Adv. M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Mr. Raman Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Miss Astha Singh, AOR Dr. Linto K.b. , AOR Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ratul Biswas, Adv. Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. Tushar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Singh, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

PROEM

1. We are tasked to consider and decide a batch of review petitions (initially in excess of 65 and some subsequently), that are presented with a common grievance that the judgment and order1[order under review] passed by us in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 erroneously interprets the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20093[RTE Act]. Premised on the multi-fold grounds urged in the petitions, it is claimed that the order under review has caused immense injustice to the petitioners and, thus, ought to be reviewed upon extending opportunity of hearing in open court proceedings. Vide the order under review, inter alia, in-service teachers imparting lessons to students recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act, and having more than 5 (five) years to retire on superannuation, were held to be under an obligation to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test4[TET] within 2 (two) years from 1st September, 2025. In the interest of justice, we directed the review petitions to be placed for open court hearing.

2. Petitioners – various States, teachers’ associations/organisations, individual teache

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top