Kerala High Court Mandates Closure of Unrecognized School Imparting Religious Instruction Under RTE Act

Introduction

In a significant ruling reinforcing the mandatory recognition requirements under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), the Kerala High Court has ordered the closure of an educational institution operating without proper state approval, particularly one focused on teaching Quran-related subjects. Delivered by Justice Harisankar V. Menon on February 2, 2026 , the judgment in connected writ petitions WP(C) No. 21615 of 2023 and WP(C) No. 28053 of 2024 emphasizes that no school can function without recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act , even if it holds accreditations from other bodies. The petitioners in the first case, local residents Moithunnykutty and Bappu, challenged the operations of Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School, run by respondents Ummer Farooq and Abdul Majeed. The school, in turn, filed the second petition against a closure directive. While upholding the shutdown, the court granted a temporary reprieve, allowing the school to operate through the 2025-2026 academic year to facilitate student transitions. This decision underscores the balance between regulatory compliance and student welfare in India's education landscape.

Case Background

The dispute centers on Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School, located in Punna yur, Thrissur district, Kerala, which has been providing preschool education to approximately 300 students with a curriculum centered on Quran and allied religious subjects. The school's operations came under scrutiny following complaints from local residents Moithunnykutty and Bappu, who alleged that the institution was functioning illegally without the requisite recognition from state educational authorities, as mandated by the RTE Act.

The events leading to the legal battle began in 2021 when initial communications from the Punna yur Grama Panchayat highlighted potential irregularities in the school's setup. By April 2022 , the petitioners formally complained to the panchayat, prompting an inspection by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), Chavakkad , who submitted a report (Ext. P4) on June 14, 2023 , confirming the absence of RTE recognition. This report was forwarded to the District Educational Officer (DEO) , who, through proceedings dated June 21, 2023 (Ext. P10), directed action against the unauthorized operations. The District Collector, Thrissur , was also apprised and issued further instructions in October 2023 (Ext. P12).

In response, the school operators, Ummer Farooq and Abdul Majeed, impleaded as additional respondents, argued for their right to continue. The school itself filed WP(C) No. 28053 of 2024 in 2024 to challenge a July 3, 2024 , order from the AEO directing immediate closure and issuance of transfer certificates to students. The core legal questions before the court were twofold: whether the school could legally operate without RTE recognition despite holding building permits, panchayat approvals, and accreditation from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) ; and whether its focus on religious instruction violated broader constitutional and statutory norms on secular education.

The case timeline spans from initial complaints in 2022 to the final hearing in February 2026, reflecting ongoing administrative delays and appeals, including a rejected challenge to an interim court order via a writ appeal in 2024. Respondents included key state officials: the District Collector, DEO, AEO, Principal Secretary of General Education , and the State of Kerala , represented by the Chief Secretary.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 21615 of 2023, represented by advocates including Sri. S.K. Adhithyan , contended that the school's unlicensed operations posed a direct violation of public interest and educational standards. They emphasized that the institution, despite local panchayat permissions for construction and a building fitness certificate dated May 31, 2025 , lacked the essential recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act , which prohibits unaided schools from functioning without state approval. The petitioners highlighted the school's exclusive focus on religious (Islamic) instruction, arguing it undermined the secular framework of education and potentially exposed students to non-standard curricula. They relied on inspection reports (Exts. P4 and P10) to demonstrate that authorities had already identified the irregularities, urging the court to direct the District Collector and DEO to enforce closure without further delay. Photographs submitted as exhibits (Exts. P5, P6, P7) depicted the school's setup, reinforcing claims of unauthorized construction and operations.

On the other side, the school, petitioner in WP(C) No. 28053 of 2024 and additional 7th respondent in the first case, represented by Sri. P.S. Abdul Kareem and Sri. Nazif K.N. , mounted a robust defense. They argued that the writ petition in 21615/2023 was infructuous following the District Collector's October 2023 orders (Ext. P12) and a stop memo from the DEO. The school pointed to a slew of supporting documents: site approval and building permit from March 21, 2023 (Ext. R7(b)); NIOS accreditation dated November 28, 2024 (Ext. R7(k)); fitness and possession certificates from the panchayat in 2025 (Exts. R7(e), R7(h)); and an application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for CBSE affiliation submitted in October 2024 (Ext. R7(j)). These, they claimed, demonstrated legitimate operations, with the NIOS recognition providing a valid basis to continue, at least partially. The school also stressed the welfare of 300 students, requesting time for alternate arrangements and challenging the abrupt closure order (Ext. P1 in 28053/2024) as disproportionate. They acknowledged the religious curriculum but framed it as preschool education, denying any intent to flout secular norms without state permission.

The state respondents, through Government Pleader Sri. N.B. Sunilnath , supported the petitioners' position, affirming that RTE compliance was non-negotiable. They noted the school's counter-affidavit admission of imparting Quran-related education without explicit government nod for religious instruction , aligning with prior administrative findings.

Legal Analysis

Justice Harisankar V. Menon's reasoning pivoted on the unequivocal mandate of Section 18 of the RTE Act , which requires every school or educational institution to obtain recognition from the appropriate government authority before commencing operations. The court observed that while the school possessed ancillary permits—such as building approvals from the Punna yur Grama Panchayat and NIOS accreditation—these did not substitute for RTE recognition. "Here there is no dispute about the fact that the educational institution... is running the same without valid recognition from the concerned Government," the judgment stated, underscoring that alternative accreditations could not bypass statutory requirements designed to ensure uniform educational standards, child rights protection, and quality control.

A pivotal aspect of the analysis was the integration of constitutional secularism with educational regulation. The court drew a clear distinction between permissible local approvals (e.g., for construction) and comprehensive RTE recognition, which encompasses curriculum oversight. It explicitly referenced the precedent in Trustee, Hidaya Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (1) KHC 775], where a Division Bench had warned against schools imparting religious instructions without state permission. In that case, the court held that post-Article 21A insertion and RTE enactment, Section 29 mandates curricula set by state authorities, prohibiting unrecognized religious instruction that could offend secular fabric . The Hidaya ruling's relevance was direct: it justified closure for similar violations and directed a general government order requiring all private schools to seek permission for religious studies. Justice Menon applied this to critique the Ma'din school's model, noting its counter-affidavit admission of focusing on "Quran and allied subjects" for preschoolers, which lacked such permission.

The judgment distinguished between general educational accreditations like NIOS (which supports open schooling but not standalone primary operations) and RTE's holistic requirements, including infrastructure, teacher qualifications, and non-discriminatory access. It rejected the school's plea for NIOS as sufficient, clarifying that RTE overrides partial recognitions for formal schooling. This analysis reinforces that religious curricula, while culturally valuable, must align with secular state oversight to prevent parallel systems that could fragment education. The court's interim order from July 17, 2024 —upheld on appeal—further illustrated that pendency of litigation does not halt enforcement against unlicensed entities, prioritizing public policy over individual claims.

Broader implications include clarifying the interplay between RTE and bodies like NIOS or panchayats: the former's supremacy ensures nationwide uniformity, while the latter handle only peripheral aspects. For legal professionals, this ruling highlights writ jurisdiction 's role in enforcing administrative accountability, potentially setting a template for challenges to unregulated madrasas or faith-based schools across India.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations on regulatory compliance and secular education. Key excerpts include:

• On the mandatory nature of RTE recognition: "As per which it is mandatory for every school / educational institution to obtain an appropriate recognition from the Government concerned."

• Addressing the school's religious focus without permission: "No school which is required to have recognition shall impart any religious instruction or religious study without permission from the State Government." (Quoting Hidaya Educational Trust precedent)

• Justifying ineligibility for operation: "In the afore circumstances, I am of the opinion that the educational institution ... may not be entitled for running the same without a valid recognition with reference to the provisions of Section 18 of the (RTE) Act."

• On the precedent's caution against religious exclusivity: "This cannot be permitted. Since it offends the very fabric of the secular society, the Government is justified in ordering closure of the school." (From Hidaya case, as cited)

• Balancing closure with student interests: "Taking note of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the educational institution that a reasonable time may be extended for making alternate arrangements, this Court direct the respondents to permit the educational institution to run the school for the academic year 2025-26."

These quotes encapsulate the court's emphasis on statutory rigor while humanely addressing immediate educational disruptions.

Court's Decision

The Kerala High Court allowed WP(C) No. 21615 of 2023, directing the competent respondents—primarily the District Collector, DEO, and AEO—to implement the judgment's findings by taking "appropriate steps to shutdown the educational institution." Concurrently, WP(C) No. 28053 of 2024 filed by the school was dismissed, invalidating its challenge to the closure proceedings.

In a pragmatic concession, the court ordered that the school be permitted to operate through the 2025-2026 academic year, enabling authorities and the institution to arrange alternatives for the 300 affected students, such as transfers to recognized schools. This temporary measure underscores the RTE Act's child-centric ethos under Article 21A , prioritizing continuity of education amid enforcement.

The practical effects are multifaceted. Immediately, the school must cease new admissions post-2026 and wind down operations, compelling a shift for students to compliant institutions—potentially straining local resources but ensuring standardized education. For the legal community, this ruling amplifies the Hidaya precedent, signaling stricter scrutiny of faith-based schools nationwide. It may prompt the Kerala government to issue the directed general order on religious instructions, fostering uniform policy. Future cases involving unrecognized entities, especially those with religious curricula, will likely invoke this decision to argue for mandatory RTE adherence, reducing tolerance for patchwork approvals. Overall, it bolsters the secular, regulated framework of Indian education, deterring unauthorized operations while safeguarding vulnerable learners.