Writ Petition Under Art. 226 Maintainable Against Private Unaided School If Fundamental Rights Violated: Karnataka High Court - 2025-08-05

Writ Petition Against Private Unaided School Maintainable If Fundamental Rights Are Violated: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru, Karnataka – The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, has affirmed that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised against private unaided schools, provided their actions infringe upon the fundamental or constitutional rights of a citizen. However, the court dismissed a petition filed by a parent seeking admission for his child, clarifying that a mere denial of admission due to a technical glitch, without any element of discrimination, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights.

The judgment was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj in a writ petition filed by Muzammil Kazi on behalf of his minor child against a private unaided school.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Muzammil Kazi, had applied for his child's admission to LKG at a private unaided school (respondent No. 3). The family initially received an intimation confirming the child's selection and was invited to meet the Principal to confirm the seat. However, the school's website later updated the status to "verification pending."

Upon enquiry, the school informed the petitioner that a "system glitch" in its software had erroneously sent selection intimations to 61 students, including the petitioner's child. The school, with a sanctioned strength of 150 students, had already completed its admission process by filling all available seats and could not accommodate the additional students affected by the error. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the school to admit his child.

Key Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel, Shri Anwarali D. Nadaf , argued that education involves a public element, making even private unaided schools amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Citing a Delhi High Court decision, he contended that the court could conduct a judicial review of the school's actions and that the initial intimation of admission should be honored.

• Respondent School's Counsel, Shri Akshay Katti , raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against a private unaided institution. On merits, the school argued that the erroneous communication was due to a software glitch that affected 61 students. Admitting all of them would exceed the sanctioned intake of 150, and therefore, it was not possible to grant admission to the petitioner's child.

Court's Analysis: Maintainability vs. Merits

Justice Suraj Govindaraj framed two primary questions for consideration: whether the writ petition was maintainable, and if so, whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought.

On Maintainability: The Court held that the petition was indeed maintainable. Justice Govindaraj acknowledged the extensive powers of the High Court under Article 226, stating that judicial review can be exercised against any authority or private entity if its actions impact a citizen's fundamental rights. The Court observed:

"merely because respondent No.3 is a private unaided school, would not mean that this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, if an action on part of the private unaided school impinges on the fundamental or constitutional rights of a citizen, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private unaided school is maintainable."

The Court, however, emphasized that this jurisdiction is subject to self-imposed limitations and is typically exercised when there is a public element involved or a violation of fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

On Merits of the Case: Despite finding the petition maintainable in principle, the Court declined to grant relief. It concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental or statutory rights. The judgment noted:

"There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India... the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission."

The Court also clarified that since the admission was not sought under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, there was no statutory violation. The non-admission was attributed to a technical error affecting multiple applicants, not a targeted or discriminatory action against the petitioner.

Final Decision

Concluding that there was no infringement of fundamental or statutory rights, the High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought and dismissed the writ petition. The ruling establishes a clear distinction between the theoretical maintainability of a writ against a private school and the practical requirement for a petitioner to prove a concrete violation of constitutional rights to secure judicial intervention.