The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the obligation of private unaided schools to admit 25% of children from disadvantaged groups under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is unconditional and cannot be restricted by arbitrary territorial limits. This ruling invalidates a Maharashtra Government Resolution that imposed a rigid one-kilometer radius for school eligibility, reinforcing the constitutional imperative of equitable access to education.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners challenge clauses (3), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 of the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2026, which reintroduced a one-kilometer radial limit for identifying eligible private unaided schools under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. These clauses mandate that online admission portals display only schools within one kilometer of a child’s registered residence and cap the number of selectable schools at ten. The petitioners argue this undermines the statutory mandate and violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(4), 21A, and 46.
Procedural History
- 19.07.2024: A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, struck down a similar provision in Rule 4(5) of the Maharashtra RTE Rules, 2011, holding that any distance-based condition under Section 12(1)(c) is ultra vires the parent Act.
- 12.02.2026: The State issued a new Government Resolution reintroducing the one-kilometer restriction through digital admission protocols.
- 09.03.2026: The present PIL was filed seeking quashing of the new resolution.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek a declaration that the territorial ceiling is unconstitutional and ultra vires the RTE Act, and an order directing the State to remove all distance-based restrictions from the online admission portal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government can impose a fixed one-kilometer territorial limit for implementing Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, despite the absence of any such condition in the parent statute and the prior binding judgment of this Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Division Bench judgment in Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha & Ors., which held that Section 12(1)(c) imposes an unconditional obligation on private unaided schools, and that delegated legislation cannot add conditions not present in the parent Act. They argued that imposing a one-kilometer cap violates Article 21A by limiting access to education for children in densely populated or underserved areas, and contravenes Article 14 by creating arbitrary classification among schools and families.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader conceded that he could not obtain instructions from the State Government, effectively abandoning any substantive defense. No legal argument was advanced to justify the territorial restriction under the RTE Act or constitutional provisions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the RTE Act and its legislative intent, emphasizing that Section 12(1)(c) was designed to ensure inclusive education without geographical barriers. The Court reaffirmed the principle from Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha that any condition imposed by subordinate legislation must not supplant or narrow the scope of the parent statute.
"The operation of the mandate of Section 12 is not conditional, that is to say that the contention that Section 12 will operate only in absence of Government/aided schools, was not found to be correct."
The Court noted that the new Government Resolution, though framed as a procedural guideline for an online portal, functionally reinstated the very restriction previously declared void. This amounted to an end-run around judicial authority and violated the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court further held that restricting parents to ten schools within one kilometer arbitrarily limits choice and disproportionately affects marginalized communities who may have fewer nearby options.
The Court also referenced Article 21A as a fundamental right to education, which cannot be rendered illusory by administrative convenience. The absence of any legislative mandate for distance criteria renders the restriction not merely invalid, but constitutionally impermissible.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the one-kilometer territorial ceiling in the Government Resolution is ultra vires the RTE Act and violative of Articles 14, 21A, and 46. The challenged clauses are stayed, and the State is directed to ensure full compliance with the unqualified obligation under Section 12(1)(c).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Territorial Restrictions Are Per Se Invalid
- Practitioners must challenge any state circular, rule, or digital portal design that imposes distance limits for RTE admissions.
- The RTE Act mandates universal access; administrative convenience cannot override statutory rights.
- Any attempt to limit school choices via geofencing or algorithmic filtering must be struck down as ultra vires.
Online Systems Must Reflect Statutory Mandate
- State education departments must redesign admission portals to display all eligible private unaided schools, regardless of proximity.
- The cap of ten schools is arbitrary and must be removed; parents must be allowed to select from all qualifying institutions.
- Technical constraints cannot be used to circumvent constitutional obligations.
Judicial Precedent Is Binding on Administrative Action
- The Akhil Bharatiya Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha judgment is not merely persuasive - it is binding precedent.
- Reintroducing a struck-down condition through administrative orders constitutes contempt of court and invites contempt proceedings.
- Practitioners should cite this judgment when opposing any rebranding of prohibited conditions under new nomenclature.
