1. Public interest litigation arising from collapse of a government school building causing death of students. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 531
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, JJ.
Suo Motu - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11613 of 2025 Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3673 of 2013, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8990 of 2013, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13769 of 2014, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16406 of 2022, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8679 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11527 of 2025
Decided On : 05-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Mahesh Gurjar, Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Ms. Naina Saraf, Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Mr. Alok Garg, Mr. Punit Singhvi with Mr. Ayush Singh.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Prasad (Senior Advocate), AG with Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr. Pradeep Mathur with Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh with Ms. Sakshi Agarwal, Mr. Bharat Vyas (Senior Advocate), ASG with Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Mr. S.M. Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG, Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with Mr. Anshuman Singh.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Mahesh Gurjar, Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Ms. Naina Saraf, Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Mr. Alok Garg, Mr. Punit Singhvi with Mr. Ayush Singh.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Prasad (Senior Advocate), AG with Ms. Dhriti Laddha, Mr. Pradeep Mathur with Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh with Ms. Sakshi Agarwal, Mr. Bharat Vyas (Senior Advocate), ASG with Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Mr. S.M. Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG, Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with Mr. Anshuman Singh.
The State cannot plead financial constraints to evade its constitutional and statutory obligation to provide safe and secure infrastructure for school-going children, as human rights and constitutional requirements are not contingent upon budgetary provisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Education - State's obligation to provide safe infrastructure - The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide safe and secure infrastructure for students by pleading financial constraints or budgetary limitations. Constitutional requirements and human rights are not measured by financial considerations and must be fulfilled regardless of the available budget. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8)
(B) Education - Fundamental right to receive education free from fear and in a safe environment - Children cannot be compelled to receive education from an unsound and unsafe building. Safety measures as prescribed by building codes must be implemented to ensure the security of students. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
This public interest litigation was initiated following the collapse of a government school building, which resulted in the death of seven young students and injuries to others. Despite assertions by the State that dilapidated buildings were not in use, subsequent collapses occurred, and it was found that students were studying in unhygienic conditions under open skies. Although the State acknowledged a substantial financial requirement for repairs and construction, the budget proposed for the upcoming financial year was deemed grossly inadequate to address the crisis.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the proposed budget was a mere "drop in the ocean" compared to the actual requirement. It found the State's approach to be callous and concluded that the State cannot use financial inability as a shield to evade its constitutional mandate to protect the lives and safety of school-going children.
Issues: Whether the State can legitimately plead financial constraints or budgetary limitations to avoid its constitutional and statutory obligation to provide a safe and secure educational environment for children.
Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional obligations, particularly those involving the preservation of human life and the fundamental right to education in a secure environment, must be discharged regardless of financial constraints. A plea of poverty or financial inability has no juridical basis for exonerating a governmental agency from its statutory liability or constitutional mandates.
Result: Directed the competent state authority to file an affidavit disclosing a complete road map for construction and repair of school buildings, including proposed safety measures and actions against erring officials. Requested the proposal of a panel of experts to supervise the construction and repair work.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- tort
Table of Contents
2. State argued financial constraints; petitioners argued constitutional obligation cannot be avoided due to lack of funds. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 )
3. State cannot plead financial inability to discharge constitutional duty to provide safe school infrastructure to children. (Para 3 , 8 , 10 )
4. State cannot avoid constitutional obligation to provide safe school infrastructure on grounds of financial constraints. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Directed Chief Secretary to file affidavit with roadmap for construction/repair of school buildings and safety measures. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Can the State plead financial constraints to avoid its constitutional obligation to provide safe school infrastructure?
No, the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation on grounds of financial constraints. It must allocate necessary funds to ensure safe infrastructure for school children. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
7. Is the right to education in a safe building a fundamental right of children?
Yes, it is the fundamental right of every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety, and children cannot be compelled to study in unsafe buildings. (Para 7 )
8. Does the National Building Code apply to school buildings?
Yes, the National Building Code of India, 2005 must be implemented by all government and private schools to ensure safety measures are followed. (Para 7 )
Order :
1. The present Public Interest Litigation arises on account of collapse of a Government School building in District Jhalawar in the month of July, 2025 resulting into loss of life of seven toddler students and injuries to various others. Despite an assurance extended by the State by way of an affidavit of Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 04.09.2025 that no dilapidated room/building was being used and alternative arrangements for safe and smooth study of the students have been made, a number of incidents have happened in the State of Rajasthan wherein, buildings/roof of the Government schools have collapsed. Fortunately and fortuitously, except loss of life of one student, others escaped miraculously. Further, from the material on record including the report submitted by the various District Legal Services Authorities, we find that the students are still studying under open sky/trees in totally unhealthy and unhygienic condition.
2. As per the additional affidavit dated 31.01.2026 filed by the Secretary, School Education Department, a sum of Rs.20,000 crores approximately is required for construction/repair work in government schools out of which, a sum of Rs.1,624 crores was already sanctioned.
3. The additional affidavit of Shri Devi Shankar Sharma, the District Education Officer (Legal), Secondary Education, Department Jaipur dated 16.02.2026, reflects that a sum of Rs.1,000 crores is proposed in the budget for the financial year 2026-27 for construction and repair of new schools/dilapidated schools/rooms. In view of the requirement of Rs.20,000 crores for this purpose, as projected by the respondents themselves, this budget proposal appears to be a drop in the ocean. Despite being granted the opportunity, learned Advocate General is unable to convince this Court as to how, with such a paltry and highly inadequate budget, the Government shall be able to provide safe and secure infrastructure to the school going children. We may also observe that, it is a matter of common knowledge that cost of every infrastructure project, particularly those floated by the Government, increases by at least 10% annually. Given this budgetary constraint, it appears highly improbable that the State will be able to ensure a safe, secure and conducive environment for school going children in the near future unless, drastic measures are adopted immediately.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae, S/Shri Swadeep Singh Hora and Tanmay Dhand have brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and Ors. Vs. State of W.B. and Anr. reported as (1996) 4 SCC 37, wherein, their Lordships have held as under:
"16. It is no doubt true that financial resources are needed for providing these facilities. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate medical services to the people. Whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done. In the context of the constitutional obligation to provide free legal aid to a poor accused this Court has held that the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation in that regard on account of financial constraints. [See: Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, 1981 (1) SCC 627 at p. 631]. The said observations would apply with equal, if not greater, force in the matter of discharge of constitutional obligation of the State to provide medical aid to preserve human life. In the matter of allocation of funds for medical services the said constitutional obligation of the State has to be kept in view. It is necessary that a time-bound plan for providing these services should be chalked out keeping in view the recommendations of the Committee as well as the requirements for ensuring availability of proper medical services in this regard as indicated by us and steps should be taken to implement the same. The State of West Bengal alone is a party to these proceedings. Other
