Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ
G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
AADRITI PATHAK & ANR. – Respondent
LPA 499/2025 & CM APPLs. 47640-41/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh, Ms. Sabrina Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Ms. Ashna Khan, Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Harshita Nathrani
The education of children with disabilities must be inclusive and adaptable to individual needs as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, ensuring no discrimination and a supportive environment.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 16, 17 and 31 - Inclusive education - The Court upheld the learned Single Judge's direction for the child's re-admission into school with support for special needs; emphasized the obligation to provide an inclusive environment as mandated by the Act. (Paras 12, 25, 39)
(B) Education Rights - The learned Single Judge determined that non-disclosure of the child's disability cannot invalidate her admission; the school must adapt to meet individual needs. (Paras 16, 33)
(C) Institutional Obligations - The judgment stressed that schools must proactively support students with disabilities instead of distancing themselves. (Paras 35, 42)
Facts of the case:
The case involves the re-admission of a child diagnosed with mild autism, whose education was disrupted due to a lack of support from the school despite a previously fair admission process. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the child is entitled to a supportive educational environment, mandating compliance by the school for the child's reintegration along with a shadow teacher for assistance as per the Act. (Paras 37-39)
Issues: The primary issues were the school's obligation under the RPwD Act to provide inclusive education and assess the impact of the child's behavior. (Paras 36, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that an inclusive education system is mandated by law, emphasizing that the child must receive adequate support and should not face discrimination based on disability. (Paras 25-28)
Result: Appeal dismissed; the school must comply with the order within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. school directed to re-admit child. (Para 2) |
| 2. child's background and diagnosis discussed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal notice and school's response noted. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. appointment of board for child's best interest. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. denial of admission under cwsn category discussed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. violation of rpwd act by school noted. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. discussion on behavioral support for the child. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. committee for child's evaluation and support established. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. school's objections to committee findings highlighted. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. school's denial of rights under rpwd act criticized. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 11. mandates of rpwd act for educational institutions emphasized. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 12. rights of children with disabilities regarding education discussed. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 13. government's duties under rpwd act articulated. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 14. educational equality for children with disabilities reinforced. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 15. inclusion mandates and reasonable accommodation discussed. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 16. denial of admission reflects non-cooperation by the school. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 17. court supports inclusion and compliance with judgment. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 18. final dismissal of appeal and compliance deadline. (Para 44) |
2. A direction has also been issued by the learned Single Judge to the Department of Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘DoE’) of Delhi Government to monitor re-integration of the child and ensure that the school provides inclusive and non-discriminatory environment in accordance with Sections 3 and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RPwD Act’). The school has also been required to file a compliance affidavit detailing steps taken to accommodate and support the child, as directed.
3. The child who instituted the proceedings of the writ petition through her mother was born as a normal child on 08.05.2017, however, she experienced delayed achievement of certain milestones of growth such as sitting, walking and speech. In November, 2019 a Doctor suspected the child to be suffering from Autism and thereafter, she was subjected to therapy but such therapy got interrupted by the pandemic caused by Covid-19.
4. The child, however, was admitted to the school in the Academic Session 2021-2022 under the “Sibling Clause”. In December, 2021 child was diagnosed with mild autism at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi which followed recommendation for various therapies.
5. On account of Covid-19, classes were conducted online which are said to have been attended by the child and offline classes resumed in April, 2022. It is at the resumption of offline classes in April, 2022 that the parents of the child submitted her diagnosis and assessment reports to the school administration. The facts which can further be culled out from the pleadings available on record are that the school administration shared its concerns about child’s behaviour with her parents whereupon, the mother of the child met the principal of the school requesting support in the form of a shadow teacher or allowing special educator to assist her but such request did not yield any support from the school. Parents of the child consulted Dr. Imran Noorani at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital who assessed the child and is said to have assured that the child was a capable child who could thrive in an integrated system with appropriate support. Dr. Noorani thus, recommended in his child development report that, “To explore child‘s assets and build on them there should be an integrated and multidimensional approach from home, school and the therapists for future goals.”.
6. It was pleaded thus, on behalf of the child, that on account of constant pressure and lack of support from the school her education was discontinued from 01.01.2023 though, fee was paid till March, 2023. When legal notice sent on behalf of the child through her mother to the school also resulted in n
