Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sharing of expenditure responsibilities between Centre and State for implementing the RTE Act is constitutionally and legally mandated, with the primary responsibility lying with the State Government, which must provide sufficient funds irrespective of disputes with the Centre ["V. Eswaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary - Madras"], ["Mizoram SSA Teachers Association r/b its President VS State of Mizoram - Gauhati"], ["State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow VS Anurag - Allahabad"].
Section 7 of the RTE Act explicitly details the sharing of financial and other responsibilities: the Central Government prepares expenditure estimates and provides grants-in-aid, while the State is responsible for contributing the balance funds necessary after considering the Central assistance and matching State share ["Mizoram SSA Teachers Association r/b its President VS State of Mizoram - Gauhati"], ["State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow VS Anurag - Allahabad"], ["Master Manjunath Rep. by his Father Devappa Basappa Harijan VS Union of India Rep. by its Under Secretary to the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of School Education and Literacy - Karnataka"].
The Act does not classify the sharing of expenditure as a scheme but as a statutory obligation. The responsibility to allocate funds and implement the Act effectively rests with the State Governments, which are required to align their schemes and budgets accordingly ["V. Eswaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary - Madras"], ["Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"].
The implementation framework, including the formation of advisory councils and the issuance of guidelines, emphasizes the State's role in fulfilling its financial and administrative duties under the Act, reinforcing that sharing expenditure is a statutory requirement, not merely a scheme ["Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune VS Union of India - Bombay"], ["ABHYUTTHANAM SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
While the Centre and State share financial responsibilities, the State's obligation to provide the remaining funds after Central grants is clear and legally binding, and the notion that this sharing constitutes a scheme is incorrect; it is a statutory scheme embedded within the Act's provisions ["United Private Educational Institution Federation (698/2021), Rep By Its Chairman Sri Gollapudi Mohan Rao VS State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Rameshwar Jha vs Principal Richmond Global School - Delhi"], ["Federation of Public Schools VS Government of NCT of Delhi - Jharkhand"].
The Court has consistently recognized that the responsibility for funding and implementing the RTE Act lies primarily with the State, which must ensure adequate provision of funds and adherence to the statutory framework, rather than treating expenditure sharing as a scheme ["SHABNAM Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Delhi"], ["Rajeev Kumar S/o Shiv Chandra Ram VS Union of India through Secretary, New Delhi - Patna"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Sharing expenditure between the Centre and State for the implementation of the RTE Act is a statutory obligation mandated by the Act itself, particularly under Section 7. It involves a legally binding framework where the Central Government prepares expenditure estimates and provides grants-in-aid, and the State Governments are responsible for fulfilling their share of funding. This responsibility is not merely a scheme but a core statutory requirement necessary for the effective realization of the right to free and compulsory education. The assertion that expenditure sharing is not a scheme aligns with the legal provisions and judicial interpretations emphasizing the statutory nature of these responsibilities ["V. Eswaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary - Madras"].
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is a cornerstone of India's commitment to universal education under Article 21A of the Constitution. A common query arises: Sharing expenditure between Centre and State for implementation of RTE Act is not scheme. This statement sparks debate on whether the funding mechanism is merely a discretionary scheme or a binding constitutional duty. This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from judicial interpretations and implementation challenges to clarify this issue.
While this analysis provides general insights, it is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Enacted to make education a fundamental right for children aged 6-14, the RTE Act mandates free and compulsory education. Key provisions include infrastructure norms, teacher qualifications, and notably, Section 12(1)(c), requiring private unaided schools to reserve 25% seats for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups (EWS/DG).Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar VS State of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(SC) 60
The RTE Act provides for admission of 25% children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections in Class I, not across the whole school.Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar VS State of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(SC) 60
Funding for RTE implementation involves shared responsibility between the Centre and States. The Act envisions a collaborative model, often linked to schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), now merged into Samagra Shiksha. However, courts have emphasized that this sharing is not optional. RTE provides for sharing of resources between Centre and States for implementation of the Act.STATE OF BIHAR VS BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER - 2019 Supreme(SC) 571
This raises the pivotal question: Is this sharing merely a scheme with flexible ratios (e.g., 90:10 or 60:40), or an enforceable obligation?
Labeling RTE funding as a mere scheme undermines its status. Article 21A imposes a constitutional obligation on the State (including Centre and States) to provide free education. Schemes like SSA facilitate implementation, but the duty transcends them.
In teacher appointment disputes, the Supreme Court clarified that RTE-driven recruitments (e.g., Niyojit teachers in Bihar) are part of an integrated policy to meet Article 21A goals, not isolated schemes. State appointing teachers at different points of time as Shiksha Mitra and Niyojit teachers to achieve spread of education as mandated by Article 21A and the Act.STATE OF BIHAR VS BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER - 2019 Supreme(SC) 571
Financial sharing ratios evolve—e.g., from 90:10 to 60:40 in some contexts—but budgetary constraints cannot excuse violations. Budgetary constraints or financial implications can never be a ground if there is violation of Fundamental Rights of a citizen.STATE OF BIHAR VS BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER - 2019 Supreme(SC) 571
Courts refuse to treat disputes over Centre-State finances as mere scheme-related, especially pre-implementation. This Court refuses to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to finances between the Centre and GNCTD even before the private schools have undertaken their obligation under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 and incurred expenses thereof.Justice For All VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2020 Supreme(Del) 825
Section 12(1)(c) Enforcement: Courts stress streamlined procedures. The Court emphasized the need for the State and local authorities to create enforceable regulations for effective implementation of the RTE Act, particularly for the admission process under Section 12(1)(c).Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar VS State of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(SC) 60
Digital Divide During Pandemic: RTE obligations extend to online tools for EWS children. The necessity that private schools should provide requisite digital tools to EWS/DG students as part of their obligations under RTE Act, along with reimbursement for such expenses.Justice For All VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2020 Supreme(Del) 825
Teacher Pay and Parity: Niyojit teachers under RTE-linked schemes sought equal pay, but courts balanced doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' with recruitment differences and fiscal strain. Direction for parity in pay scales of both cadres could create tremendous imbalance and cause great strain on budgetary resources.STATE OF BIHAR VS BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER - 2019 Supreme(SC) 571 Factors include method of recruitment, qualifications, and duties. No mechanical parity, but decent emoluments urged.
Admission Transparency: PILs highlight mechanisms ensuring 25% seats reach beneficiaries. Court is satisfied with the mechanism and the admission process suggested... by which the object and purpose of the RTE Act will be achieved.SANDIP HARSHADRAY MUNJYASARA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 656
Implementation hurdles persist:
These cases illustrate that while operationalized via schemes, RTE expenditure sharing is rooted in constitutional duty, not discretionary largesse.
States like Bihar expanded schools massively post-RTE (21,261 new primaries), underscoring scale.STATE OF BIHAR VS BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER - 2019 Supreme(SC) 571
In essence, viewing RTE funding as 'not scheme' aligns with its fundamental right status—binding, not optional. For tailored guidance, reach out to legal experts.
This post draws from reported judgments; verify latest developments.
#RTEAct, #CentreStateFunding, #EducationRights
Section 7 (5) of the RTE Act, 2009 clearly stipulates that irrespective of a finance dispute between the Centre and State, in the first instance the State shall be responsible to provide funds for implementation of the said Act and accordingly, they must provide sufficient provision ... Since the State Government has not agreed to implement NEP 2020, there are issues regarding disbursement of funds. He pointed out that in view of Section 7 (5) of th....
Section 7 of the RTE Act provides for sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and the State Governments. Section 7 of the RTE Act may be abstracted here under for ready perusal:- “7. ... (2) The Central Government shall prepare the estimates of capital and recurring expenditure for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. ... This provision in the RTE Act is ....
Section 7 (5) of the RTE Act, 2009, the State Government shall after taking into consideration the sum provided by the Central Government above and the mandatory matching State share, provide the balance funds necessary to fulfill the estimate for the implementation of the Act.
Ganoo, has not been envisaged in the scheme of the RTE Act. 27. ... As per the scheme contained in Section 7 of the RTE Act, the Central Government has to provide to the State Governments such percentage of expenditure as grant-in-aid as may be determined from time to time in consultation with the State Government. ... (2) The Central Government shall prepare the estimates of capital and recurring expendi....
Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, it is for the Government to take decision for proper implementation of the RTE Act, also by giving the protection and/or concession to the concerned schools for non compliance of the scheme in strict sense. ... Apart from the provisions of the RTE Act, Article 162 of the Constitution of India, if necessary need to be invoked to implement and/or enforce the scheme and purpose of the RTE Act#HL_EN....
The appropriate Government, i.e., the State Government in the present case, has been given limited powers to issue guidelines for the implementation of the RTE Act, which it has been issuing every year since 2014. ... It also stated that the Government of Rajasthan would be the “appropriate Government” in terms of definition under the RTE Act and under the Samagra Siksha Scheme, 2018-19, the existing fund sharing burden is 60:40 for all the States wi....
principle and the Rules therein; (xxvi) That, as indicated above, the reimbursement of the per student expenditure through ‘Ammavodi Scheme’ is arbitrary as it does not cover within its’ ambit all sections of children eligible under RTE Act. ... This Court has noticed that the State, at the outset, has not done the exercise of mapping of schools in furtherance of the objects of the RTE Act, 2009. ... It has also noticed that the #HL....
Consequently, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 has been developed to present a systematic mechanism/procedure to be followed by the State Governments in making the entire process streamlined and transparent.” ... The RTE Act provides for admission of 25% children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections in Class I, not across the whole school. ... so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-#HL_S....
In that regard, having considered the entire scheme of Act as well as the Rules and the various rulings passed by the Courts, this Court deems it fit, under the provisions/scheme as notified under the RTE Act/Delhi RTE Rules, to direct the DoE to carry out necessary screening as well as to mandate the ... Sharing of financial and other responsibilities.-(1) The Central Government and the State Governments shall have concurrent responsibility for prov....
In that regard, having considered the entire scheme of Act as well as the Rules and the various rulings passed by the Courts, this Court deems it fit, under the provisions/scheme as notified under the RTE Act/Delhi RTE Rules, to direct the DoE to carry out necessary screening as well as to mandate the ... Sharing of financial and other responsibilities.—(1) The Central Government and the State Governments shall have concurrent responsibility for pro....
For instance, the Carriage by Air Act, 1961 gives legislative force to certain Carriage by Air Conventions. This Court is further of the opinion that the GNCTD is neither weak nor remediless and it can certainly file appropriate legal and constitutional proceedings to seek redressal of its grievances, if any. Moreover, this Court refuses to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to finances between the Centre and GNCTD even before the private schools have undertaken their obligation under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 and incurred expenses thereof. Accordingly, this Court directs th....
RTE provides for sharing of resources between Centre and States for implementation of the Act. Population of the State of Bihar is 10.41 crores. After 2005, it has opened 21261 new Primary Schools and Upgraded 19617 Primary Schools to Middle School under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Niyojit Teachers (respondents) are governed by new Rules framed under the 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendment. 3129 Middle Schools were upgraded to Secondary or Senior Secondary School, which on date is as follows: Primary Schools 42614 Middle Schools ....
It is also further submitted that as such in the year 2017-18 in fact all the 25% seats were not offered for admission. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that to have transparency in implementation of the RTE Act for the academic year 2018-19 and to see that the object and purpose of the RTE Act is achieved and the actual benefit reaches to the concerned beneficiaries for whom the RTE Act is enacted, the reliefs sought in the present petition may be allowed /granted. [2.1] In the further affidavit dated 01/05/2018, it is pointed out that when the applications ar....
7. In the event of provincialisation without the stipulated infrastructure, it would shift enormous financial burden and onus on the State Govt. There are no reports or maintaining the proper norms for enrolment, for building and amities in the institutions and for the distance to be maintained between two institutions etc. 8. As regards other than Elementary Education, such principles have either not diligently stipulated or ignored while provincialising the services of the teaching and non teaching staff of secondary and college level institutions . As per RTE Act, 2009 and in su....
The learned A.G.P. submits that the earlier ratio of sharing expenditure by the Union of India and State Government for implementation of the scheme has been changed from 90:10 to 60:40 respectively. The budgetary provision and policy decision for incurring expenditure has not yet been made. Remuneration for the above referred posts also has been increased. Therefore, the Minister for Agriculture, directed that unless and until policy decision is taken by the State Government and budgetary provision is sanctioned, the orders for appointment on contract basis in favour of th....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
