Background and Supreme Court Exemption

In 2014, the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India provided minority schools with an exemption from the Right to Education (RTE) Act of 2009. This meant minority schools, whether aided or unaided, were not required to adhere to the RTE Act's norms, such as reserving 25% of seats for disadvantaged students. However, in September 2025, a two-judge bench questioned the justification of this blanket immunity, suggesting it may have undermined the objective of inclusive education. The matter has been referred for review by a larger bench.

Right to Education Act (RTE) Overview

The RTE Act, enacted to operationalize Article 21A of the Constitution, guarantees free elementary education for children aged 6–14. It sets standards for pupil-teacher ratios, teacher qualifications, school infrastructure, and bans practices like corporal punishment and capitation fees. It mandates:

• Government schools to provide free education to all enrolled children.
• Aided schools to offer free seats proportional to the aid they receive.
• Private unaided schools to reserve 25% of seats for disadvantaged groups, with state reimbursement.

The Act was intended to be child-centric, emphasizing universal education and social justice, with exemptions only for institutions imparting primarily religious instruction.

Court Involvement and Initial Rulings

Upon the RTE Act's introduction in 2010, it faced resistance from private schools and minority groups. They argued that the 25% quota infringed on their autonomy, citing Articles 19(1)(g) (freedom of occupation) and 30(1) (minority rights). In 2012, a Supreme Court bench upheld the Act for universal education as a "reasonable restriction" but exempted unaided minority institutions, citing potential breaches of Article 30(1).

Impact and Controversies

The exemption led many private schools to seek minority status to avoid RTE compliance. Critics claimed some institutions used this status without reflecting minority community interests. The RTE Act's goal was to use the 25% quota to transform classroom composition, fostering diversity and social equity.

Recent Supreme Court Observations

In 2025, Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan revisited the exemption during discussions on enforcing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in minority schools. They argued the exemption undermined universal education, proposing that RTE provisions do not compromise minority character. They suggested that fulfilling the 25% quota could be achieved by admitting disadvantaged children from the same minority group, requiring case-by-case assessments.

Reception and Future Implications

Educationists welcomed the ruling for reinforcing children's rights and educational equity. The decision emphasized experience-sharing among diverse socio-economic backgrounds as a democratic lesson. The future of the Pramati judgment will be determined by a larger Supreme Court bench. If overturned, minority schools may need to comply with RTE provisions, potentially reshaping educational dynamics in classrooms.