• The Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 operationalized Article 21A, ensuring free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14.
• Promoted equity, inclusivity, and child-centric education.
• In Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India (2014), SC exempted both aided and unaided minority institutions from RTE obligations.
• In September 2025, Justice Dipankar Datta’s bench revisited this issue, questioning whether such a wide exemption undermines universal education.

About the RTE Act, 2009

• Provides free education in government schools.
• 25% reservation in private unaided schools for disadvantaged groups with state reimbursement.
• Obligations on aided schools to reserve seats in proportion to aid.
• Sets standards: pupil-teacher ratio, teacher qualifications, infrastructure norms.
• Prohibits capitation fees and corporal punishment.
• Child-first approach ensuring accountability of all schools.

Constitutional Protection for Minority Institutions

• Articles 29 & 30 safeguard cultural and educational rights of minorities.
• Article 30(1) allows minorities to establish and administer their own institutions.
• Exemption for minority schools came only through judicial interpretation.

Judicial Developments before Pramati

• 2012 – Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan case:
• Upheld RTE’s constitutionality.
• 25% quota allowed as a reasonable restriction.
• Exempted unaided minority schools, but aided ones were still under RTE.

The 2014 Pramati Judgment

• Five-judge Constitution Bench: RTE cannot apply to aided or unaided minority institutions.
• Quotas would change their character and infringe Article 30(1).
• All minority schools exempted.
• Consequences:
• - Many schools claimed minority status to evade RTE.
• - Disadvantaged children excluded from quality education.
• - Publicly funded schools avoided accountability.
• - Equity weakened; autonomy prioritized over child’s rights.

The 2025 Supreme Court Reconsideration

• Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta & Manmohan reopened the debate.
• 2014 judgment went 'too far' with blanket exemption.
• Exemption undermines universal education.
• Teacher standards (TET, infrastructure) do not affect minority identity.
• Articles 21A & 30(1) must be harmonized.
• Quota issue should be decided case by case.
• Possible solution: fill quota with disadvantaged children from their own minority community.

Significance of Reconsideration

• Balances child’s right to education with minority autonomy.
• Restores accountability, especially in aided institutions.
• Promotes inclusivity and mixed classrooms.
• Prevents misuse of minority status.
• Sets precedent that may reshape education law.

Wider Implications

• For children: better access for disadvantaged groups.
• For education system: ensures teacher quality and common standards.
• For society: promotes social cohesion and democracy.
• For governance: clarifies balance between group rights and universal entitlements.

Conclusion

• Pramati (2014) weakened RTE’s transformative potential.
• 2025 SC bench emphasised that children’s rights cannot be subordinated.
• If exemption overturned: minority schools must comply with RTE (25% quota).
• Marks a historic shift toward inclusive education.
• Reaffirms child’s right to education as central to policy and law.