Published on: 04th March 2026
Authored by: Manyah Jethi
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU
Citation: 2025 INSC 1063
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Manmohan
Date of Judgment: 2025
Facts of the Case
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem is an educational institution for minorities, run by the Muslim community of Karnataka and administered by them, with the aim of promoting education among minority communities, specifically Muslims. This institution is affiliated with the state to function as an educational institution.
Later, certain conditions on affiliation and recognition were imposed by the NCTE (National Council FOR Teacher Education) to maintain the discipline and academic standards of the university, which included administrative control, service conditions, and applicability of the Teacher Appointment Test (TET) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, regarding the appointment and promotions of teachers in the institution on 29 July 2011.
The institution challenged it, stating that it violates their fundamental right, i.e., the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions mentioned in Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Aggrieved by these decisions, the institutions and the teachers approached the High Court, and then the matter reached to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the state can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority education institution must qualify with the Teacher Appointment Test (TET) and, if so, does such a requirement affect the institution’s minority right under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the teachers appointed before the NCTE notification dated 29 July 2011, and therefore having long work experience necessary to qualify for TET and be eligible for continuation and promotion in future?
- Whether the Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. UOI (2014), which holds the RTE Act inapplicable for minority institutions, warrants reconsideration and to what extent?
Arguments (Appellant)
The appellant contended that this rule violates Article 30(1) of the constitution which states that minority institutions have a special status and they and all minorities can administer educational institutions of their choice. A bench also argued that the RTE Act does not apply to minority institutions, whether aided or unaided, until and unless it is reconsidered by a larger bench. As, according to the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case,[1] RTE does not apply to minority institutions. Excessive interference amounts to indirect nationalisation of minority institutions.
Moreover, application of TET amounts to judicial and executive overreach by the state and instead of improving the educational standards it might disrupt it and alter the very object of the Right to Education Act. Also, applying TET to just teachers before 2010 for promotion would impair rights under Article 14 and 16 and denying it would affect the efficiency and morale of the system. Treating TET as a minimum qualification, it will merely assess the aptitude and not qualifications like academic or professional competence of teachers.
Arguments (Respondent)
The respondents argue that the application of TET is a mandatory test for institutions.
They argued that under Article 21A, the Right to Education is a fundamental right of children, to be taught by qualified teachers, and this right cannot be taken away except when constitutionally sanctioned. Exempting the minority institutions will lead to a violation of Articles 14 and 21A.
 These teaching standards would enhance their learning on a higher level and improve the students’ future. TET is an eligibility criterion for all institutions; hence, there should be no discrimination i.e minority institutions cannot be preferred or be in a more advantageous position than the non-minority institutions. It lacks intelligible differentia and rationale nexus, proving it to be an unreasonable classification, a violation of Article 14.
Section 23 of the RTE act and 2014 guidelines, along with Section 12A of the NCTE Act makes TET mandatory for minimum qualifications. Section 23 also provides qualifications for in-service teachers. In the leading case of T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)[2] and Sec’y, Malankara Syrian Catholic Coll. v. T. Jose (2006)[3], it was held that the state can impose regulatory measures to maintain educational standards, which also include teacher qualifications.
These arguments made TET an essential and legitimate tool, putting stress on student welfare and better educational standards and does not interfere with administration; it is merely a regulation, not control.
Judgement
The court held that TET is a minimum qualification for all teachers under Section 23 of the RTE Act, regardless of the institutions, whether they are minority or non-minority. The court also observed that Article 21A- right of children to education, and Article 30(1) are not absolute rights and can be used to overrule the regulatory standards of children. The court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction to balance both Article 21A and 30(1). The court also clarified that the Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust (2014) case was not overruled; only its scope was distinguished as it dealt with institutional obligations.
The court also allowed the teachers with less than 5 years of service to continue teaching without clearing the TET test, but also restricted their promotions (Article 142). This balances both fairness to teachers and providing for quality education. Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court granted limited protection to teacher’s in-service before the enforcement of the TET norms.
Section 12A of the NCTE Act describes the minimum qualifications of teachers. Since it is a central law, any state norm overruling it would be considered void, resulting in the doctrine of repugnancy.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that TET test is a requirement for career advancements, such as to continue in service and promotions in the institutions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court stated that TET is an eligibility test that is a mandate for teachers in RTE-centred schools to ensure a minimum standard of education, making both their appointment and promotion valid. This made qualifications under TET a regulatory measure applicable even to minority institutions.
Minority institutions have the right to appoint their teachers under Article 30(1), which does not make an exemption for them to work in compliance with the basic rules, educational and academic advancements made by the state or the government and ensures compliance with Article 21A, meeting the education standards.
Critical Analysis
The Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) is an important constitutional judgment balancing the rights of minority to administer educational institutions and Article 21A, which is the Right to Education Act. Rather than treating these constitutional provisions as absolute, the Supreme Court inclined more towards balancing rights. The court held TET as a minimum qualification, improving the quality of education and welfare of the students. Also invoking Article 142 to protect in-service teachers appointed before the NCTE notification and to continue with their service, but restricting their promotions.
Moreover, rather than overruling the precedent case of Pramati, the court described a part of it as unconstitutional, making its scope limited.  This case stands as a benchmark in India’s jurisprudence and reflects how the judiciary evolves to harmonise diversity with uniform standards and balances diversity with autonomy. Hence, it reflects that constitutional rights co-exist but must also be harmoniously interpreted.
[1] Pramati Educ. & Cultural Tr. v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1 (India).
[2] T.M.A. Pai Found. v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481 (India).
[3] Sec’y, Malankara Syrian Catholic Coll. v. T. Jose, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 386 (India).
