Context

The Supreme Court has recently called for a re-examination of its 2014 ruling in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India case. That judgment had exempted minority institutions from the provisions of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The court now questions whether such an exemption undermines the goal of universal and inclusive elementary education.

About the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Case (2014):

• In 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 21A (Right to Education) and Article 15(5) (reservation in private institutions). However, it exempted unaided minority institutions under Article 30(1) from implementing the RTE Act.
• This meant that minority schools were not obligated to implement key RTE provisions, such as reserving 25% of seats for children from economically weaker sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c).

What the Court Said: 

• Article 21A and Article 30(1) can coexist: The right to education does not necessarily undermine the right of minorities to establish and administer institutions.
• RTE should apply to minority schools: Many such schools already admit students from outside their community, proving inclusivity is not incompatible with minority rights.
• Exemption undermines inclusivity: Allowing minority schools to bypass RTE norms weakens the constitutional vision of universal elementary education.
• Loophole created: The exemption has encouraged institutions to seek minority status as a way to avoid RTE obligations.
• Alternative approach: On the 25% reservation clause, the Court suggested that minority schools could fulfill this requirement by admitting disadvantaged children from their own community. This would preserve cultural identity while ensuring intra-community upliftment.

Minority Educational Institutions in India:

Minority institutions are protected under Article 30 of the Constitution, which allows religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions to preserve their culture and language.

• Article 30(1): Grants minorities the right to establish and administer institutions.
• Article 30(2): Prohibits discrimination in granting aid.
• T.M.A. Pai Case (2002): Clarified that minority status is determined state-wise.

The Right to Education Act, 2009:

The RTE Act operationalises Article 21A by making free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14.

• 25% reservation in private schools for EWS and disadvantaged children.
• Prohibition of capitation fees, interviews, and unrecognised schools.
• Age-appropriate admission, no detention, and no expulsion until completion of elementary education.
• Infrastructure norms, pupil-teacher ratio, and appointment of trained teachers.
• Special training for out-of-school children to help them integrate.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of the 2014 ruling is significant. If the exemption for minority institutions is withdrawn, it could reshape the relationship between minority rights and the right to education. The challenge lies in balancing cultural autonomy with the broader constitutional goal of universal, equitable, and inclusive education. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences for India’s education system, especially in terms of access and equity for disadvantaged groups.