Supreme Court places PIL to bring minority institutions under RTE Act before CJI

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court has alleged that amendments made to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) were introduced after a meeting between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and certain Muslim organisations.

The Centre, however, has maintained that the 2012 amendment, which inserted Sections 1(4) and 1(5) into the Act, was a measured policy decision aimed at safeguarding minority educational rights guaranteed under Article 30 while continuing to uphold universal education under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih directed that the petition be placed before the Chief Justice of India since similar issues are already pending reference before a larger Bench. The court said the question of whether minority and religious institutions can be kept outside the RTE framework needs to be examined comprehensively by the Chief Justice.

The Union Government has consistently maintained that the amendment sought to strike a balance between two fundamental rights: the right to education for all children and the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Officials have clarified that the objective was not to provide political favours or exemptions but to ensure that pluralism in education remains protected within India’s constitutional structure.

According to the Centre, India’s education policy must reflect both uniform standards and cultural diversity, and the RTE Act’s framework respects that balance. “The Constitution envisages diversity in educational governance. The RTE was refined to respect pluralism, not to undermine it,” a senior official said earlier in response to similar challenges.

The PIL filed by Nitin Upadhyay seeks to declare Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the RTE Act as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It claims that the Centre introduced the provisions “under political pressure” from organisations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, alleging that both groups had threatened agitation and withdrawal of political support unless madrasas were excluded from the RTE’s purview.

The petition further states that the decision was taken after Muslim leaders met Rahul Gandhi. The petitioner argues that schools providing only religious instruction should fall under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and not under Article 30 (minority rights), and that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) should apply uniformly to all schools in the spirit of Article 21-A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38, 39 and 46.

The plea also questions the 2014 Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India judgment, which upheld the validity of the RTE Act but exempted minority institutions from some of its provisions.

Earlier this year, another Bench of Justices Datta and Manmohan had expressed doubts about whether the Pramati judgment correctly interpreted the scope of minority exemptions. That Bench referred the broader issue to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench. The present petition is now expected to be heard along with those pending matters.

In the meantime, the Court has protected teachers and institutions from disruption. Exercising its powers under Article 142, it directed that teachers nearing retirement could continue without clearing the TET, while those with more than five years of service remaining must qualify within two years.

The Centre has described these directions as a pragmatic approach that ensures continuity in classrooms while gradually implementing higher standards of teacher qualification.

The Centre also underlined that the right to education under Article 21-A continues to be available to all children, and that the exemption for minority institutions merely protects administrative autonomy, not educational exclusion.

Case Title: Nitin Upadhyay v. Union of India

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih

Hearing Date: October 15, 2025