Context:

The Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, was enacted to operationalise Article 21A of the Constitution and guarantee free and compulsory elementary education for children aged 6–14 years. Its vision was rooted in equity, inclusivity, and the idea that education is a fundamental right of every child. However, the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India carved out a sweeping exemption for minority institutions, both aided and unaided. This meant they were not bound to follow provisions like reserving 25% seats for disadvantaged children or complying with uniform standards.

Recently, in September 2025, a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta revisited this issue while deciding whether minority schools must follow the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for recruitment. The bench held that the 2014 exemption may have undermined the spirit of universal education and referred the matter to a larger bench.

This development reopens a debate at the intersection of child rights, minority autonomy, and the State’s responsibility to ensure inclusive education.

The Constitutional Protection for Minority Institutions:

Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution guarantee cultural and educational rights to minorities. Article 30(1) in particular allows religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own institutions.

While drafting the RTE Act, lawmakers included Section 1(4), which stated that its application would be subject to these constitutional provisions. However, the Act itself did not explicitly exempt minority schools. The exemption was created by judicial interpretation in subsequent cases.

Judicial Developments before Pramati:

The introduction of the RTE Act was met with resistance from both private schools and minority groups.

• • 2012 Judgment (Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan case):
    A three-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of the RTE Act. It ruled that the 25% quota was a reasonable restriction in the interest of universal education. However, it exempted unaided minority institutions, holding that quotas would alter their character and violate Article 30(1).

Thus, before 2014, minority unaided institutions had already been given an exemption, while aided minority institutions were still under the Act.

The 2014 Pramati Judgment:

A five-judge Constitution Bench in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India extended the exemption further. Its key points were:

• • The RTE Act could not be applied to either aided or unaided minority institutions without infringing on their right under Article 30(1).

  • Applying the 25% quota would “change the character” of minority institutions.

  • Hence, all minority schools were exempted from obligations under the RTE Act.

This ruling effectively removed a large number of schools from the Act’s purview, including those that received public funding.

The Pramati ruling created several consequences:

1. 1. Evasion of RTE norms: Many private schools sought minority status, sometimes nominally, to escape obligations like the 25% quota.

   2. Exclusion of disadvantaged children: The intended social mixing of children from different socio-economic backgrounds was undermined.

   3. Policy distortion: Institutions receiving government aid could avoid complying with accountability measures, even though public funds were involved.

   4. Equity concerns: Critics argued that the judgment privileged institutional autonomy over the child’s right to education.

The 2025 Supreme Court Reconsideration:

While deciding the validity of requiring TET in minority schools, the two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan reopened the Pramati debate.

Their observations included:

• • The 2014 judgment had gone “too far” in creating a blanket exemption.

  • Exempting minority schools undermines universal education and opens a regulatory loophole.

  • Standards like qualified teachers and infrastructure do not threaten minority identity.

  • Article 21A (Right to Education) and Article 30(1) (Minority Rights) must be harmonised.

  • The 25% quota should not be rejected outright; instead, whether it affects minority character should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

  • One possible approach is to allow minority schools to fill the quota with disadvantaged children from their own community.

Significance of the Reconsideration:

1. 1. Restoring balance between rights: It seeks to harmonise the child’s right to education under Article 21A with minority autonomy under Article 30(1).

   2. Strengthening accountability: Minority schools, particularly aided ones, may again be subject to basic quality standards and reservations.

   3. Advancing inclusivity: If the exemption is overturned, classrooms could become more socially diverse, advancing equity and democracy.

   4. Preventing misuse of minority status: A stricter interpretation would curb the practice of institutions claiming minority status solely to bypass obligations.

   5. Setting precedent: A larger bench ruling could reshape education law and clarify the scope of minority rights vis-à-vis universal entitlements.

Wider Implications:

• • For children: Exemptions deprive many from disadvantaged backgrounds of access to better schooling opportunities.

  • For the education system: Universal standards like TET ensure minimum teacher quality across all institutions.

  • For society: Mixed classrooms foster social cohesion and democratic values by bridging divides of class, religion, and caste.

  • For governance: The case highlights the tension between protecting group rights and ensuring universal entitlements in a diverse democracy.

Conclusion:

The Pramati ruling of 2014 created a wide gap in the implementation of the RTE Act by excluding all minority institutions, even those receiving government aid. Over the past decade, this has weakened the law’s transformative potential.

The 2025 Supreme Court bench has now questioned this exemption, observing that the right of the child cannot be subordinated to institutional autonomy. By referring the matter to a larger bench, the court has opened the possibility of restoring balance between minority rights and universal education.

If the exemption is overturned, minority schools would once again be required to comply with key provisions of the RTE Act, including the 25% quota. This could mark a major step toward inclusive education in India, reaffirming that the rights of every child remain at the centre of educational policy.