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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., Amit Borkar, J.
Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No. 61 of 2024 with Public Interest Litigation No. 87 of 2024 along with Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 14887 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 3317 of 2024 with Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 15520 of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Devyani Kulkarni and Ms. Sanskruti Yagnik for petitioners in PIL/61/2024; Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate with Ms. Payal Gaikwad, Mr. Deepak Chatap, Mr. Raj Kamble and Ms. Vasudha Chandwani for petitioner in PIL(L)/14887/2024.; Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shreya Mohapatra and Sanjot Shirsath for petitioner in WP/3317/2024.; Mr. Swanand Ganoo with Mr. Tejas S. Bhide for petitioner in PIL (L)/15520/2024.; Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Chatap, Mr. Rushikesh Bhoyar for petitioners in PIL/87/2024.; Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Additional GP with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, A.G.P. for State - respondent in PIL/61/2024.; Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional GP for respondent in PIL No.87 of 2024; Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. with Smt. Rita Joshi, A.G.P. for the State-respondent in PIL(L)/14887/2024, PIL(L)/15520/2024 and WP/3317/2024.; Mr. Arvind G. Kothari with Ms. Manisha Mane - Bhangale, Ms. Brijal Vora and Mr. Akshay Arora i/b. Parinam Law Associates for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in PIL/61/2024.; Mr. Arvind Kothari for respondent Nos.6, 7, 18 and 19 in PIL/61/2024.; Mr. Nilesh Patil with Ms. Shraddha Pawar i/by Team Justice League for respondent Nos. 8 to 12 in PIL/61/ 2024.; Mr. Pritesh Burad with Mrs. Madhuri Gamare i/by Pritesh Burad Associates for respondent No. 17 in PIL/61/2024.; Mr. Chaitanya Nikte with Mr. Swapnil Sangle i/by Mr. Prajit S. Sahane for respondent No. 21 in PIL/61/2024.; Ms. Leena Patil for respondent No. 1-(UOI) in WP/3317/2024.; Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for respondent No.3-(UOI) in PIL(L)/15520/2024.; Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Trivedi, Ms. Suchitra Valjee, Mr. Varun Nathani, Mr. Himalaya Chaudhary, Ms. Rajvi Shah, Ms. Riyas Vasa i/by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for respondent No.4 in PIL(L)/14887/2024.; Mr. Sharad Gosavi - Director of Primary Education, Pune is present.; Mr. Ramdas Dhumal - Desk Officer (Education) Mantralaya, Mumbai is present.

The Amendment Rules exempting private unaided schools from admitting 25% disadvantaged children based on proximity to government schools violate the RTE Act and Article 21-A, as they impose conditions not present in the Act.

Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 12(1)(c) - Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - Amendment Rules, 2024 - Challenge to the Amendment Rules which exempt private unaided schools from admitting 25% of disadvantaged children if a government or aided school is within 1 km - The court held that the Amendment Rules are ultra vires the RTE Act and violate Article 21-A of the Constitution, as they impose a condition not present in the Act itself. (Paras 20, 76, 78)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Amendment Rules that restrict the identification of private unaided schools for 25% admissions based on proximity to government schools, arguing it violates the RTE Act and fundamental rights.

Findings of Court:
The Amendment Rules were declared void as they contravene the unconditional mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act.

Issues: Whether the Amendment Rules infringe the RTE Act and Article 21-A by imposing a distance condition for admissions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the RTE Act mandates admission without conditions regarding proximity to government schools, thus the Amendment Rules are invalid.

Result: The petitions were allowed, and the Amendment Rules were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ.

(A) CHALLENGE:

1. By instituting these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, some of which are PIL petitions, challenge has been made to the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules) whereby after Rule 4(5) of the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Rules), a proviso has been added which provides that the Local Authority shall not identify the private unaided schools where Government schools and aided schools are situated within a radius of 1 km of that school, for the purpose of providing 25 per cent admission to the children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections under the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Manner of admission of Minimum 25% children in Class-I or Pre-School at the entry level for the children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker section) Rules 2013.

2. By the said Amendment Rules notified on 9th February 2024, in addition to appending the impugned proviso to Rule 4(5) to the Principal Rules, a proviso has also been added to Rule 8(2), according to which, no private unaided school which is identified under the proviso to Rule 4(5) of the Principal Rules shall be eligible for reimbursement under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the RTE Act).

3. In PIL Petition (L) No.15520 of 2024, apart from challenging the Amendment Rules, the communication, dated 6th March 2024 and the Circular issued on 3rd April 2024 issued by the Director of Education (Primary), State of Maharashtra have also been challenged. The said communication and the circular are issued for the purpose of giving effect to the impugned Amendment Rules.

(B) Evolution of law regulating Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education in its historical perspective:

4. Prior to introduction of Eighty Sixth Constitution Amendment Act 2002 w.e.f. 1st April 2010, Article 45 in Part-IV of the Constitution existed as follows:

    "Article 45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children. - The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years."

5. Article 45 which now exists in the Constitution on enactment of Eighty Sixth Constitution Amendment Act w.e.f. 1st April 2010, is as follows:

    "Article 45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years. -The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years. the age of 14 years.

6. By introducing Eighty Sixth Constitution Amendment, sub clause (k) was added to Article 51A which falls in Part-IVA of the Constitution of India. Article 51A(k) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

    "51A Fundamental duties:- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India -

    a...

    b......

    (k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1993(1) SCC 645 observed that the children up-to the age of 14 years have a fundamental right of free education. Thereafter, the Parliament, on realization that one of the directive principles of State Policy contained in Article 45 for providing free and compulsory education to all the children upto the age of 14 years, within ten years from the promulgation of the Constitution, could not be achieved, accordingly enacted the Eighty Sixth Constitution Amendment Act 2002 inserting Article 21-A, substituting Article 45 and introducing Article 51A(k) in the Constitution. The Eighty Sixth Constit

                          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 Back to top