Delhi HC Stresses Assimilation of Special Needs Children While Hearing GD Goenka Autism Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday orally remarked that society as a whole bears the responsibility of ensuring that children with special needs are assimilated into the mainstream. The observation came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by GD Goenka School against a single-judge order directing the institution to readmit a child diagnosed with mild autism into an age-appropriate class.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela is seized of the matter. The court had earlier, on August 5, constituted an expert panel to conduct a fresh evaluation of the child after the school questioned the single judge order.

On July 1, Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over a single-judge bench, had allowed the plea of the minor student after the school discontinued her education citing behavioural concerns. Underscoring the principles of inclusive education, Justice Mahajan had observed;

“It 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 court directed that the child be readmitted to Class I or any other age appropriate class as a fee-paying student within two weeks, and further permitted the presence of a shadow teacher, subject to the school’s norms of decorum and safety.

Challenging this decision, the school approached the division bench. During Tuesday’s proceedings, counsel for the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) informed the court that the evaluation report had been filed. The report, which assessed the child’s behaviour, concluded that she could be reintegrated into the school with the support of a shadow teacher.

The school, however, opposed this conclusion. Its counsel argued that the child’s continued presence in the institution was not feasible in light of certain past incidents as well as her current medical condition, which, it was submitted, might affect her classmates. Raising concerns over the integrity of the evaluation, counsel contended;

“There were no experts in the committee. Even during the evaluation of the child, I was not present; somebody else conducted the examination, and I was misled into signing it.”

When the bench sought clarification on the precise role of a shadow teacher, counsel explained that such a teacher merely repeats classroom instructions for the child.

The school further submitted that it had not been given an opportunity to interact with the student during the evaluation, despite being responsible for her education for the next decade or more. The evaluation, it argued, was conducted in a closed-room environment that did not replicate the dynamics of a classroom filled with peers. Such conditions, it was contended, rendered the assessment unreliable.

The report, according to the school, was “not free and fair” and “full of flaws,” including the choice of testing environment.

After hearing the rival contentions, the division bench directed Dr. Shehzadi Malhotra, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at IHBAS, to file an affidavit within two days detailing the process adopted for the assessment and evaluation of the child. The court further directed that upon receipt of this affidavit, the school may submit its objections within two days thereafter.

After dictating its order, the bench orally remarked;

“It is the easiest task for the court to direct admission in a school that already has teachers for special children. But one of the real tasks before society is to ensure their assimilation. That is the challenge.”

The case highlights the larger framework of inclusive education; The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, obligates schools to provide equal access to education for children with special needs and to make reasonable accommodations for them. Earlier, the Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) recognised the right to education as flowing directly from Article 21, which encompasses dignity and development of every child. 

The minor child in this case, Aadriti, was born in 2017 and diagnosed with mild autism in December 2021. She was admitted to GD Goenka School for the academic session 2021-22 under the sibling quota but discontinued schooling in 2023. The single-judge order of July 1 had restored her right to continue education in an age-appropriate class with necessary support. The division bench is now examining the validity of that order in light of the expert evaluation and the school’s objections.

The matter will be taken up after the affidavit of the IHBAS expert is placed before the bench.

Case Title: G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL v/s AADRITI PATHAK & ANR

Hearing Date: 19 August 2025

Bench: Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela