'Difference Enriches Classrooms': Delhi HC Tells GD Goenka to Reinstate Girl Child With Mild Autism

The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that the statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are enforceable duties, designed to ensure full and effective participation of children with disabilities in all walks of life, particularly in the realm of education.

In doing so, a bench led by Justice Vikas Mahajan granted relief to a girl child with mild autism, whose education at GD Goenka Public School was discontinued after the school raised concerns over her behavioural issues.

The judge said,"It needs no emphasis that „inclusive education‟ is not merely about access to education; it is about belongingness. It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all."

The bench was dealing with a plea moved by a girl through her mother, seeking readmission in Class I or any age-appropriate class under Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The minor child, Aadriti, was born in 2017 and was diagnosed with mild autism in December 2021. She was admitted to GD Goenka for the academic session 2021–22 under the sibling quota. However, she later discontinued school in 2023.

In 2024, she was allotted the same school again under the CWSN quota, but the school refused admission, stating that there was no vacancy left. The school also claimed that Aadriti’s parents had voluntarily withdrawn her in December 2022 and that the admission stood vitiated due to non-disclosure of her autism at the time of initial enrollment.

Rejecting the school's claim, the HC held that the child had not been definitively diagnosed with mild autism until December 2021. It also referred to the school’s own legal notice reply, in which it acknowledged accommodating Aadriti despite the alleged non-disclosure, consistent with its inclusive education policy.

While relying on a report of a committee constituted by the Directorate of Education, the High Court noted that said committee had assessed Aadriti and had recommended her continuation in the same school with the assistance of a shadow teacher.

Further, the HC rejected the school’s contention that there was no vacancy in Class I for the academic years 2024–25 or 2025–26, stating: “The school cannot be allowed to defeat the petitioner’s right to inclusive education by raising technical issues.”

The Court emphasised, “At the same time, the right to inclusive education under the Act is not symbolic but an enforceable right, and no child can be deprived merely due to the institutional unwillingness to adapt.”

In view of this, the Court directed the school to readmit Aadriti in Class I or an age-appropriate class as a fee-paying student within two weeks.

It also allowed the presence of a shadow teacher, subject to the school’s basic norms of decorum and safety.

“The DoE shall monitor the reintegration of the petitioner and ensure that the school provides an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment in accordance with Sections 3 and 16 of the Act. The respondent No.1/school shall file a compliance affidavit within four weeks, detailing steps taken to accommodate and support the petitioner as directed.” the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan, Advs

Respondents: Mr. Kamal Gupta and Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Ms. Aakriti Jain, Advs. for R-2/DoE.

Case Title: AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA versus GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR