The Supreme Court has said that properly implementing the 25% quota for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections in nearby private unaided schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009, can bring about a major change in India’s social system.

While hearing a plea, the court stressed that the goal is so important that it should be pursued as a national mission.

The Court observed that Section 12 of the RTE Act is ambitious because it aims to create a common school system where all children—regardless of class, caste, or gender—attend the same local school and learn together in an inclusive, non-segregated environment.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chadurkar observed :

"Properly understood, this statutory design is normatively ambitious. It envisages elementary education for all children, across the spectrum of class, caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional space.It makes it possible, normatively and structurally, for the child of a multi-millionaire or even of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India to sit in the same classroom and at the same bench as the child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor. This is the manner in which Section 12 seeks to concretise the constitutional principle of fraternity alongside equality and liberty."

"The emphasis on “neighbourhood schools” is rooted in the National System of Education, as elaborated in the Kothari Commission Report, which recommended a Common School System whereby all children, irrespective of social or economic background, would attend the same neighbourhood schools and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated environment. This model envisages the school as a common civic space that breaks down barriers of caste, class and gender, and thereby advances substantive equality and social justice."

In the said matter, the Court gave directions to ensure Section 12(1)(c) is properly implemented.

This section requires private unaided schools and special category schools to admit at least 25% of their Class 1 intake from economically weaker sections and provide them free education up to the elementary level. These schools are eligible to receive reimbursement from the government for the per-child cost. The Court also said it will actively monitor how these directions are carried out.

The special leave petition challenges the Bombay High Court’s order in a writ petition, where the petitioner had sought a direction to admit his children under the 25% free education quota.

The High Court bench, consisting of Justices Vasanti A. Naik and Swapna Joshi, noted that the petitioner had not applied for this quota when the admissions were conducted online.

The High Court said that it is the petitioner who is to be blamed for failing to take appropriate steps. "There would be several persons like the petitioner who would be below the poverty line but who may for the reasons best known to them, have not applied for admission of their kids in the 25% quota for free education. If the petitioner had failed to take appropriate steps to admit his kids in the free education quota, the petitioner should blame himself."

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that granting relief to the petitioner would mean extending the same to many others who might approach the Court.

The Supreme Court observed that individual relief in this case was no longer meaningful, as eight years had passed. However, the Court decided to focus on the broader issue of ensuring proper enforcement of the RTE Act.

"In order to ensure that this situation shall not revisit parents like the petitioner again and again, we considered it appropriate to take up the case for precedent making and decided to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures for complying with the mandate of Section 12," the Court said.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026.

Case Details: DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 10105/2017