Maharashtra's Amendment Exempting Private Schools From 25% RTE Quota If Govt-Run School Exists Nearby 'Unconstitutional': High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra government's decision exempting private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections, if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school, is "unconstitutional".

The decision was taken by the State this year by amending the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar set-aside the Rules as unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that private and unaided schools must reserve 25% of seats in Class I for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. Sub-clause (iii) includes schools of specified category such as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sainik School etc. and sub-clause (iv) includes schools not receiving any aid from government or local authority.

On 6th May, the High Court had stayed the Amendment on a PIL filed by one Aswini Kable, who argued that the amendment violates Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Constitution. He cited cases from other High Courts including Allahabad HC and Madhya Pradesh HC where similar amendments were struck down.

The State had argued that the exclusion of private unaided schools from the quota was not absolute but applied only to those situated within a one-kilometer radius of government and aided schools. It was contended that under section 6 of the RTE Act the government and local authorities are obligated to establish schools, and in Maharashtra, school shave been established in the prescribed areas. Thus the inclusion of private unaided schools was not necessary.

Copy of the detailed judgment is awaited.

Case no. – PIL(L)/14887/2024 [Original]

Case Title – Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra