Why in news?
The Supreme Court has reopened a decade‑old debate about whether schools run by religious and linguistic minorities should be exempt from the Right to Education (RTE) Act. In September 2025 a five‑judge bench said that the 2014 Pramati judgement, which excused minority institutions from reserving seats for children from disadvantaged communities, may not give sufficient weight to the fundamental right to education. The judges signalled that minority schools cannot claim a blanket immunity when basic rights of children are at stake.
Background and history
The RTE Act of 2009 makes free and compulsory education a justiciable right for children aged 6–14 years. Section 12(1)(c) obliges unaided non‑minority schools to reserve at least 25 per cent of seats for students from economically weaker sections and to teach them free of cost, with the government reimbursing schools. Religious and linguistic minorities enjoy constitutional protection under Article 30, which allows them to manage their own institutions. In Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) the Supreme Court held that applying the RTE Act to minority schools would undermine their autonomy and therefore exempted both aided and unaided minority institutions.
The debate over rights and misuse
- Balancing two rights: The new bench has noted that the right to education (Article 21A) is a fundamental right for every child, whereas minority rights under Article 30(1) are framed as institutional freedoms. The court is exploring whether the two rights can be harmonised so that children studying in minority schools are not denied basic protections.
- Misuse of minority status: Many private schools reportedly seek minority recognition mainly to escape RTE obligations. The court observed that such “shopping” for minority status undermines the common schooling vision and deprives disadvantaged children of equitable access.
- Scope of exemptions: The bench questioned why even government‑aided minority schools – which receive public funds – should be exempt. It hinted that requiring these schools to adhere to minimum standards and reservations may not violate their right to administer institutions.
Way forward
The court’s review offers a chance to craft a child‑centric interpretation of constitutional rights. Possible steps include limiting exemptions only to unaided minority institutions of a genuinely religious or linguistic nature, and mandating that aided schools follow basic standards of access and quality. Clear guidelines could prevent arbitrary designation of minority status. Ultimately, a balanced approach is needed that protects minority cultures while ensuring that no child is denied education simply because of the school she attends.