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
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:
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:
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:
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
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Srinivasan
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav
Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 573
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India & Anr.
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 condition....
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandates that private unaided schools comply with all provisions of the Act, including maintaining educational standards and ensuring opport....
The judgment establishes that executive actions must comply with statutory mandates, particularly in education, and emphasizes the importance of the neighborhood principle in school admissions.
meaning of the said expression in Section 2 (d-2) of the 1972 Act inserted by the U.P. Act No.2 of 2018, would not be relevant for the purpose of 1978' Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.