The Bombay High Court has held that the distance criterion prescribed under the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 cannot be applied as a rigid and impregnable bar to defeat the admission of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group in a private unaided school under the 25% quota mandated by Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Relying on a Division Bench judgment in Ashish Chaman Fulzele v. State of Maharashtra which directed the State to remove distance restrictions for private unaided schools, the Court prioritized the child's fundamental right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A over technical non-compliance with distance norms, particularly where the admission had been allotted by the authorities and the school delayed raising objections, causing the child to lose a precious academic year.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Karuna Sumit Kamble, is the mother of Krishika, a six-year-old girl child belonging to the Scheduled Caste, a disadvantaged group under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The petitioner applied for her daughter's admission in a private unaided school under the 25% quota for weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. The Balmohan Vidyamandir School (Respondent No. 2) was allotted as the third preference by the Education Officer (Respondent No. 3) vide communication dated 10th April 2026. The school refused admission, and the Deputy Director of Education (Respondent No. 1) subsequently cancelled the allotment by order dated 14th August 2026 on the ground that the aerial distance between the petitioner's residence and the school exceeded the prescribed 1 km limit, being approximately 4 km.
Key Facts
- The petitioner resides at Room No. 66, Building No. 64, BDD Chawl, Near Jambori Maidan, Bhagoji Waghmare Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018
- The petitioner's daughter fulfills the criteria of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group as a member of the Scheduled Caste
- Three school preferences were given in the application; Balmohan Vidyamandir was the third preference
- The Education Officer allotted Balmohan Vidyamandir School vide letter dated 10th April 2026
- The school refused to admit the child and 11 other students allotted under the RTE quota
- On 16th June 2026, the Education Officer called upon the school to appear for a hearing as four students had not been admitted
- The school preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education questioning eligibility on various grounds including distance
- The Deputy Director directed admission of two students whose residence was within 1 km to 3 km range
- Based on an Education Inspector's report stating the petitioner's residence was 4 km from the school, the Deputy Director cancelled the allotment for the petitioner's daughter by impugned order dated 14th August 2026
- The petitioner had mentioned the correct residential address in the application form, supported by Aadhaar Card and Electricity Consumption Bill
- The aerial distance was mentioned as 0.417 km in the admission form, while the actual distance is about 4 km
- The Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Chaman Fulzele v. State of Maharashtra (PIL No. 17 of 2026, decided 11th March 2026) had quashed distance restrictions in the Government Resolution dated 12th February 2026 and the State Government had stated it would not prescribe area restrictions for private unaided schools
Procedural History
- 10th April 2026: Education Officer allots Balmohan Vidyamandir School for petitioner's daughter under RTE quota
- 16th June 2026: Education Officer calls upon school for hearing regarding non-admission of four students
- July 2026: School prefers appeal before Deputy Director of Education
- 14th August 2026: Deputy Director passes impugned order cancelling allotment for petitioner's daughter on distance ground; directs admission of two other students within 1-3 km range
- 2026: Petitioner files Writ Petition No. 11310 of 2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
- 12th October 2026: Matter reserved for judgment
- 19th October 2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: The impugned order is unsustainable as the Division Bench in Ashish Chaman Fulzele has quashed distance criteria for private unaided schools; the State Government withdrew distance restrictions; the correct residential address was furnished; cancellation after nearly five months causes grave prejudice as the child loses an academic year; the school adopted an adversarial approach by appealing only after complaints were made.
Respondent No. 1 (State): The petitioner deliberately furnished incorrect aerial distance (0.417 km instead of 4 km); the petitioner chose schools far beyond the prescribed distance criteria; the impugned action conforms to rules governing RTE admissions; the petitioner gave an undertaking that admission would be liable to cancellation if information was untrue; principles of natural justice were followed.
Respondent No. 2 (School): The matter is non-contentious; both school and petitioner must ensure admission complies with statutory framework; the RTE Act emphasizes "neighbourhood school" with definite purpose; Rules 2011 and 2013 prescribe distance limits; Ashish Chaman Fulzele applies only where no private unaided school is available within prescribed limit; Amol Vasantrao Patil and Murugan Nadar uphold area restrictions; petitioner deliberately submitted incorrect information.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 14th August 2026, direction to admit her daughter in Class I at Balmohan Vidyamandir School, and protection of the child's right to education under Article 21A.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the distance criterion prescribed under the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (1 km for Classes I-V) can be applied as a rigid and absolute bar to cancel the admission of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group in a private unaided school under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009, where the Division Bench of this Court has directed the State to remove distance restrictions for private unaided schools, the authorities initially allotted the school, and the cancellation occurs after a significant delay causing the child to lose an academic year.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Sudhanva Bedekar submitted that the foundation of the impugned order is flawed as the sole reason for cancellation was excess distance. He relied heavily on the Division Bench judgment in Ashish Chaman Fulzele where the Court directed the State Government to modify the distance criteria with a rider that such restrictions should not be imposed for admission to private unaided schools. The PIL was disposed of noting the State's compliance in removing distance restrictions. In the face of these directions, Respondent No. 1 could not cancel admission after almost five months based on distance criteria. The question is whether the child's right to free and compulsory education is violated, not whether there was a technical error by the parents. Cancellation after nearly five months caused grave prejudice as the petitioner did not seek admission elsewhere under legitimate expectation. The school's adversarial approach was uncalled for. The Court should adopt an interpretation advancing the constitutional guarantee under the RTE Act.
For the Respondents
Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP, supported the impugned order, submitting the petitioner was entitled to give up to 10 preferences but chose schools beyond the distance criteria. The petitioner deliberately furnished incorrect aerial distance in the online application. A party furnishing incorrect information cannot claim discretionary relief. Ms. Deepa Chavan, Senior Advocate for the school, emphasized the statutory framework under the RTE Act, Central Rules 2010, Maharashtra Rules 2011 and 2013. The expression "neighbourhood school" in Sections 3 and 12(1)(c) has a definite purpose and cannot be rendered redundant. The Rules 2011 define neighbourhood school as within 1 km for Classes I-V. The Rules have binding force. She relied on Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (no word in statute is superfluous) and PTC India Ltd. v. CERC (delegated legislation cannot override parent Act). She cited Amol Vasantrao Patil and Murugan Nadar where this Court upheld area restrictions. Ashish Chaman Fulzele was distinguished as applying only where no private unaided school is available within the prescribed limit. Since the petitioner deliberately submitted incorrect information, the petition deserves dismissal, though the school could be directed to assist in securing admission in a neighbourhood school.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that on facts, there is no controversy that the petitioner mentioned the correct residential address in the application form, as evidenced by the Aadhaar Card and Electricity Consumption Bill annexed. The allotment letter by Respondent No. 3 records the same address. The controversy revolves around the aerial distance mentioned as 0.417 km in the form, while the actual distance is about 4 km. The allotment was made on 10th April 2026 and cancelled on 14th August 2026.
The Court traced the constitutional evolution: the 86th Constitution Amendment Act, 2002 inserted Article 21A guaranteeing free and compulsory education to children aged 6-14 years. The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted to operationalize this right. Section 3(1) declares every child's right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. Section 6 imposes a duty on the Government to establish neighbourhood schools within prescribed areas or limits. Section 2(n) defines "school" to include unaided schools. Section 12(1)(c) mandates unaided schools to admit at least 25% children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood.
The Court referred to Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra where the Supreme Court emphasized that the 25% inclusion in unaided neighbourhood schools is a vehicle for realizing the constitutional commitment to fraternity and development of the child under Articles 21A and 39(f). The neighbourhood common school system is central to democratizing schooling and reducing social inequalities.
On the connotation of "neighbourhood school", the Court examined the Central Rules 2010 and Maharashtra Rules 2011. Rule 2(m) of the Maharashtra Rules 2011 defines neighbourhood school for Classes I-V as a school established "as far as possible within a distance of one km". Rule 4(1) prescribes similar limits. Rule 4(2) empowers the State to alter minimum distance in hilly or inaccessible areas. Rule 7(3) applies these limits to Section 12(1)(c) admissions, with a proviso enabling extension with prior State Government approval.
The Court observed that Parliament did not define "neighbourhood school" in rigid terms. The power to make Rules under Section 38 was conferred to accommodate varying geographical conditions, population density, and literacy levels. The term "neighbourhood" cannot be defined with clinical precision or mathematical exactitude. Both Central and Maharashtra Rules qualify prescribed limits with "as far as possible". A rigid view impinging on the constitutional right would be impermissible. The prescription of area limits is a means to achieve the object of securing education, not an end in itself.
The Court reviewed Amol Vasantrao Patil where the Division Bench held that parental preferences cannot override the statutory mandate of neighbourhood schools, but noted that case involved a school 11 km away and the Court had no occasion to examine the right to education in private unaided schools under Section 12(1)(c). In Murugan Nadar, another Division Bench declined admission where distance criterion was not met. In Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha, a Division Bench struck down a 2024 amendment making Section 12(1)(c) applicable to unaided schools only if situated beyond 1 km from Government/aided schools, as this condition was absent in the parent Act.
The Court then analyzed Ashish Chaman Fulzele in detail. The Division Bench there held that restrictions in the Government Resolution dated 12th February 2026 were contrary to the judgment in Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha and violative of the RTE Act read with Articles 14, 21, and 21A. The Bench observed that where a private unaided school is not located within 1 km, a child belonging to a disadvantaged group cannot be deprived of the right to education under the RTE Act. The restriction may infringe the right to education in the school contemplated under the Act and frustrate its object and purpose. The Bench directed the State to modify the distance criteria with a rider that restrictions should not be imposed for admission to private unaided schools. The PIL was disposed of on 17th March 2026 noting the State's compliance in removing distance restrictions for private unaided schools.
The Court found that the Division Bench in Ashish Chaman Fulzele considered Amol Vasantrao Patil and found it of no assistance to the State as the facts were altogether different and the earlier Bench had no occasion to examine the right under Section 12(1)(c).
The Court held that while the Rules provide area restrictions, they cannot be construed as rigid, sacrosanct, and impregnable. The qualifying expression "as far as possible" and the diversity of conditions in a metropolis like Mumbai require flexibility. An interpretation completely discounting distance might not be consonant with statutory interpretation, but very rigid restrictions may not be sustainable. Distance is a relative concept; in Mumbai, means of transport and accessibility are critical.
Applying this to the facts: the petitioner did not furnish an incorrect address or suppress documents. The error in aerial distance could be inadvertent and bona fide. The petitioner's choice of schools in order of preference cannot be held against her. The authorities allotted the school in April 2026. Despite persuasion, the school did not admit the child. Grievances were made. The school filed an appeal in July 2026. Two other children within 1-3 km were directed to be admitted. The petitioner's daughter was denied admission as distance appeared to be 4 km. By then, over 4 months had elapsed, diminishing prospects of admission elsewhere. During the hearing, the AGP stated it was not practicable to accommodate the child in any other private unaided school. The Court found that applying the 3 km barometer with exactitude was too rigid and unrealistic, especially when the child would lose an academic year. The Court prioritized the child's right under Article 21A over inadvertence by authorities or error by the petitioner. The school's delay in raising objections lost the immediacy of purpose. Admission of the petitioner's daughter would not impede the salutary object of Section 12(1)(c).
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14th August 2026, and directed the respondents, including Balmohan Vidyamandir School, to admit the petitioner's daughter in Class I within a period of one week from the date of judgment (19th October 2026). The rule was made absolute. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Distance Criteria Cannot Be Applied Rigidly to Defeat RTE Admissions
The judgment establishes that the distance limits prescribed under the Maharashtra Rules, 2011 (1 km for Classes I-V, 3 km for Classes VI-VIII) are qualified by the expression "as far as possible" and cannot be treated as absolute bars. In a metropolis like Mumbai, where distance is relative and accessibility depends on transport infrastructure, authorities must apply the criterion with flexibility. A difference of 100 meters more or less does not denude an area of its neighbourhood character. Practitioners should argue that rigid application of distance norms violates the child's fundamental right under Article 21A and frustrates the object of the RTE Act.
Division Bench Directions in Ashish Chaman Fulzele Bind Authorities
The Division Bench's direction to the State Government to remove distance restrictions for private unaided schools, and the State's subsequent compliance noted in the disposal of the PIL, create a binding precedent that authorities cannot ignore. Where a private unaided school has been allotted by the competent authority, cancellation on distance grounds after the State has undertaken to remove such restrictions is impermissible. Lawyers should cite the specific paragraphs of Ashish Chaman Fulzele (particularly paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 16 and the final disposal order) to establish that the State has waived distance criteria for private unaided schools.
Delay by School in Raising Objections Prejudices the Child
The Court emphasized that the school did not report its objections immediately after allotment (10th April 2026) but filed an appeal only in July 2026, after complaints were made against it for non-admission of 12 students. This delay of nearly four months, culminating in cancellation in August 2026, caused the child to lose an academic year. Practitioners should highlight any delay by schools or authorities in challenging allotments as a factor weighing in favour of the child's right to education, particularly when alternative admissions are no longer practicable.
Inadvertent Error in Distance Declaration Not Fatal
Where the petitioner has furnished the correct residential address with supporting documents (Aadhaar, electricity bill), an error in stating the aerial distance - especially when the online portal may not have a verification mechanism - cannot be treated as deliberate misrepresentation warranting cancellation. The Court recognized such errors could be bona fide. Lawyers should ensure all address proofs are annexed and argue that the focus must remain on the child's right, not parental technical errors.
Child's Right to Education Trumps Technical Non-Compliance
The overarching principle is that the constitutional guarantee under Article 21A and the statutory mandate under Section 12(1)(c) must be interpreted to advance the child's right to education. Where admission in a private unaided school has been allotted, the school does not object to RTE admissions per se but only to this specific child on distance grounds, and no alternative private unaided school is available, the Court will exercise discretion in favour of the child. This is actionable precedent for similar cases where children face exclusion on technical grounds.
