Case Summary: Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union ofIndia

1. Case Title : Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Anr
2. Citation: (2012) 6 SCC 1
3. Court: Supreme Court of India
4. Bench: S.H. Kapadia, C.J., K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, and Swatantar Kumar, JJ.
5. Date of Judgment: April 12, 2012
6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions

• The Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15(5), 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21, 21-A, 26, 29(2), 30(1), 45, 46, and 51-A(k)
• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): Sections 3, 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c), 12(2), 13, 18(3), 21, and 22. 

Brief Facts

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, was enacted to bring in effect Article 21-A of the Constitution, which casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children within the age group of 6 to 14 years. Various associations representing private unaided schools across the country have filed writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The main challenge presented in these writ petitions is against the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the RTE Act; and the most controversial provision is Section 12(1)(c) which states that every school, whether private or unaided non-minority school or minority institution, shall reserve at least 25% of the seats in class I for children belonging to “weaker sections” and “disadvantaged groups” residing in the vicinity and provide free elementary education up to completion of elementary schooling for them.

 All over the country, private unaided schools have filed a writ petition through some associations. The foremost challenge, in all these writ petitions, is against the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the RTE Act, while the most controversial provision happens to be Section 12(1)(c). This section has stated that all schools, whether private or unaided non-minority school or minority institution, shall have to reserve at least 25% seats in class I for children belonging to “weaker sections” and “disadvantaged groups” residing nearby and provide free elementary education till the completion of elementary schooling for them.

 The petitioners asserted that these mandates created unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to establish and administer educational institutions and violated the autonomy given to minority institutions under Article 30(1). The petitioners also contend that states cannot “offload” its primary constitutional obligation under Article 21-A onto non-state actors without any government aid.

Issues

1. Whether the RTE Act, 2009, specifically Section 12(1)(c), is constitutionally valid as applied private unaided non-minority schools? 
2. Whether the mandate under Section 12(1)(c) violates the fundamental right of private unaided schools to run their institutions under Article 19(1)(g)? 
3. Whether the RTE Act applies to aided and unaided minority educational institutions in light of Articles 29(2) and 30(1)? 
4.  Whether the State can outsource its obligation under Article 21-A to provide free and compulsory education to private unaided institutions? 

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Article 21-A Obligation: The primary obligation for providing free and compulsory education shall be on the State alone. The expression “State shall provide” in Article 21-A does not impose any coextensive legal duty on non-state actors.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g): Private individuals have a substantial right to carry on the establishment of sways of educational institutes as an “occupation.” The imposition of a quota of 25% is tantamount to “nationalisation of seats,” amounting to an unreasonable restriction on their autonomy of management in the admission of students and fixation of fee structures.
3. Autonomy of Minority Institutions: The law would breach Article 30(1) for minority institutions, which states that they have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It would dilute their minority character if non-minority students were made compulsory to be enrolled from nearby localities.
4. Financial Burden: On the other hand, under Section 12(2), the State is to reimburse only its per-child expenditure. The petitioners contended that such expenditure becomes inadequate in schools with higher overheads, which in effect make them cross-subsidize the reserved seats, something that we have held to be impermissible in T.M.A. Pai Foundation.
5. Judicial Precedents: Basically, the Act is contrary to the philosophy laid down by the larger benches in the  ( T.M.A. Pai Foundation) and  (P.A. Inam dar ), which clearly delineated that the State has no business imposing quotas in unaided private profssional institutions.

Respondent’s (Union of India) Arguments:

1. Social Inclusiveness: The Act is designed to forge a stronger social fabric of democracy by ensuring equality in education. Composite classrooms with children from different backgrounds promote creativity and compatibility in society.
2. Article 15(5) Justification: With the 93rd Amendment, Article 15(5) now permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of weaker sections in respect of admission to educational institutions, private or otherwise.
3. Holistic Interpretation: Article 21-A must be construed and aligned  with Article 21 (Right to Life) and the Directive Principles (Articles 41, 45, and 46). The free education is an essential condition for a life of dignity, with an affirmative burden on all constituents of civil society in making this happen.  

Final Judgement

The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority , upheld the constitutional validity of the RTE Act with one major exception regarding unaided minority schools.

Validity for Non-Minority Unaided Schools

A majority of the court held that (The Right to Education Act (RTE Act) )is constitutionally valid and applicable to private unaided non-minority schools. The Court opined that:

• Article 21A power: Article 21A enables the State to determine the “manner” of provision of free and compulsory education. This manner could include a public-private partnership whereby the State uses the infrastructure of private schools.
• Reasonableness: Education is primarily a charitable activity. The requirement of private schools to admit 25% of students from the weaker sections would not hinder the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) but would be in the larger public interest.
• Distinction from Professional Education: The Court explained that the principles of autonomy in T.M.A. Pai and Inamdar apply to professional/higher education, where merit is the main consideration. They do not apply to Class I admissions, where the aim is education to everyone.

Validity for Aided Minority Schools

The Supreme Court held the Right to Education (RTE) Act to be valid and applicable even for aided minority schools. According to Article 29(2), no institution that receives assistance from the State can deny admission to any citizen based on religion, race, caste, or language. Therefore, once an institution accepts government aid, the State can impose conditions to guarantee the realization of the right to education for all citizens.

Exemption for Unaided Minority Schools

Most of the judges agree that RTE Act does not apply to unassisted minority schools based on the argument of 25 percent reservation infringing on the ‘absolute’ right of these minorities to establish and administer institutions ‘of their choice’ according to Article 30(1). The compulsory admission of non-minority children would not only dilute but tear apart the soul of their school in maintaining its language, script, or culture.

Boarding Schools and Orphanages

The Court has clarified that the RTE Act applies only to day scholars attending boarding institutions or orphanages but not to the boarders themselves.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Public-private partnerships in the rights: Article 21-A casts all stakeholders in civil society–both State and non-State actors–in the affirmative duty to bring to fruition the right to education.
2. Reasonable Restrictions under “Occupation”: Under Article 19(1)(g), the right to set up educational institutions is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) in the interest of the general public. One such ground of restriction is social inclusiveness in elementary education.
3. Preferring Article 30(1): Minority fundamental right to manage their institutions is “absolute” in terms of choice. Legislation does not allow unassisted minority schools to change their minority character in the manner by which students are admitted.
4. Nature of Education: Education is still termed “charity” and not a business venture commercially. Hence, there is regulation by the State for controlling private schools from being commercialized and promoting social justice.

Obiter Dicta

1. Quality: The Court pointed out that the State should not only “provide access” but also look at the actual “quality” of education in terms of shutting down non-viable or poorly performing grant-in-aid schools.
2. Parental Duty: The Court noted that unlike in the case of other rights, the right to education imposes a fundamental duty upon parents and guardians under Article 51-A(k). 
3. Child-Centric Focus: The RTE Act is “child-centric” and not “institution-centric,” meaning that the welfare and right of the child to access schooling should trump the profit or total autonomy of an institution.

Dissenting Opinion (Radhakrishnan, J.)

Justice Radhakrishnan partly dissented, arguing that the RTE Act should not be mandatorily enforced against any unaided schools (whether minority or non-minority)

1. Core Argument: He argued that Article 21-A imposes an obligation on the state; one that cannot be “offloaded” or outsourced to private citizens, who have invested in starting their own schools.
2. Procedure is unconstitutional: The laudable goal of social inclusiveness would nonetheless find that quota procedure legislation (unaccompanied by a specific constitutional amendment to Article 19) is unconstitutional. 
3. Nature of Direction : His argument was that Section 12(1)(c) must be read as directory with respect to unaided institutions, allowing them to admit children voluntary on principles of consensus and autonomy.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

1. The Act is applicable to government-owned schools, aided schools, and private unaided non-minority schools.
2. The Act is not applicable to private unaided minority schools
3. The judgment was made prospective, operating from the academic year 2012-2013.

Impact

1. This ruling fundamentally altered the educational landscape in India by endorsing the Public-Private Partnership model for primary education. It upheld the RTE Act and maintained that education is a “charitable” activity rather than a commercial one; thus, the State could impose reasonable restrictions on private institutions so they would promote social inclusiveness
2. The ruling mandated non-minority unaided schools to reserve 25% of seats for disadvantaged sections, ensuring classroom diversity would be a tool in the quest for social equity. However, it exempted unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) and thus preserved minorities’ “absolute” right to maintain their institutional character and culture. While the decision opened the doors of education for millions of children, it has also created an unending debate about the financial sustainability of the private schools and about the constitutional limits on the State to outsource its obligations.