Supreme Court Questions 2014 Pramati Ruling, Seeks Review of RTE Act Exemption for Minority Schools

Add a comment

The Supreme Court raised concerns about the 2014 Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust judgment, which exempted minority schools, both aided and unaided, from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan expressed doubt over the correctness of the five-judge Constitution Bench’s decision, stating: “In view of the foregoing discussions, we respectfully express our doubt as to whether Pramati insofar as it exempts application of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause 1 has been correctly decided.”

The bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, to determine if a larger bench should reconsider the issue, citing a 1965 precedent, Shri Bhagwan And Anr vs Ram Chand And Anr, where Justice Gajendragadkar advised that smaller benches refer significant issues to the Chief Justice. The court questioned whether the Pramati ruling should have considered a narrower interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, which mandates schools to admit 25% of students from weaker sections, to include only children from the minority community’s weaker sections, thus preserving minority rights under Article 30.

Four key issues were referred for review:

  1. Whether the Pramati judgment requires reconsideration;
  2. Whether the RTE Act, particularly Section 12(1)(c), infringes minority rights under Article 30 and if it should be interpreted to include only minority community children from weaker sections;
  3. The impact of not considering Article 29(2) in Pramati; and
  4. Whether the entire RTE Act should have been declared unconstitutional due to the lack of discussion on provisions beyond Section 12(1)(c).

The bench opined: “In our considered opinion, the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided. As discussed, its implementation does not erode—let alone annihilate—the minority character protected under Article 30(1). On the contrary, applying the RTE Act aligns with the purposive interpretation of Article 30(1), which was never meant to shield institutions from reasonable regulation in pursuit of constitutional goals. There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1); both can and must co-exist mutually.”

The judgment arose from civil appeals addressing issues like the mandatory Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) for teachers appointed before July 29, 2011, and its applicability to minority institutions. The National Council for Teacher Education made TET mandatory in 2011. Using its powers under Article 142, the court issued directives:

  1. Teachers with less than five years of service remaining as of September 1, 2025, can continue until superannuation without TET;
  2. Such teachers seeking promotion must qualify for TET;
  3. In-service teachers with over five years until retirement must pass TET within two years to remain in service, failing which they face compulsory retirement with terminal benefits, subject to qualifying service rules. Cases of deficient service may be reviewed by the relevant department.

Case Details: Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors | C.A. No. 1385/2025

Click Here for Full Judgment

Leave a comment