Area Limits To Determine “Neighbourhood School” Under RTE Act Are A Means To Secure Right To Education, Not An End In Itself: Bombay High Court
The Court quashed cancellation of six-year-old’s RTE quota admission over 4 km distance; directed school to admit her within one week.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the area limits used to identify a “neighbourhood school” under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are a means of securing a child’s right to education and not an end in themselves. The Court observed that such limits cannot be treated as rigid, sacrosanct or impregnable, particularly in a metropolis like Mumbai.
With that approach, the Court quashed the cancellation of a six-year-old girl’s admission under the 25 per cent RTE quota, ordered because her home was about four kilometres from the school. It directed the school to admit her to Standard I within one week, prioritising her Article 21A of the Constitution of India right over an error in the application form.
A Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar observed, “A very rigid view of the limits of area to the point that deviation therefrom is impermissible would, in a given case, impinge upon the constitutional right of free and compulsory education. Undoubtedly, the constitutional guarantee is to be enforced in accordance with the law made by the State. However, the prescription as to the area and limits to ascertain what constitutes a neighbourhood school ought to be construed as a mean for achieving the object of securing the right to free and compulsory education to the child and not an end in itself”.
Advocate Swapnil Shanbhag for the petitioner and Savita Prabhune, AGP, Senior Advocate Deepa Chavan appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner’s daughter, fulfilled the criteria of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group as she was a member of the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, she was allotted Balmohan Vidyamandir, Dadar, on April 10, 2026 as the third of her three preferences. The application stated an aerial distance of 0.417 km, while the actual distance is about four km. The school did not admit her.
After complaints to the Education Officer, the school appealed to the Deputy Director of Education, questioning several students’ eligibility. By an order of August 14, 2026, the Deputy Director directed admission of two students living within one to three km but cancelled the petitioner’s allotment on an inspector’s report of a four km distance.
She challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, based on Ashish Chaman Fulzele and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Nagpur Bench Public Interest Litigation No. 17 of 2026, decided on 11th March 2026., in which the Bench required the State to remove distance restrictions for private unaided schools. The State and the school argued that the Rules bind and that she had furnished incorrect information.
The Court noted that the Rules qualify the limits with the words “as far as possible” and that distance is a relative concept. It cautioned that an interpretation discounting distance entirely would not accord with the Act, and declined to resolve the apparent conflict between Fulzele and earlier decisions such as Amol Vasantrao Patil.
“To begin with, it is necessary to note that the Parliament, did not define what constitutes, “a neighbourhood school”, while mandating that every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to free and compulsory education therein. The obligation on the State and the local authority to establish the neighbourhood schools was also not defined in a straitjacket. Under Section 38(1) and (2) of the RTE Act, the appropriate Government was conferred the power to make Rules to provide the areas or limits for the establishment of a neighbourhood school under Section 6 of the RTE Act…”, the Bench said.
“…The necessity of conferring the power to define the limits by framing the Rules arose on account of the varying factors which bear upon the determination of the area or limits, in view of the vast and varied differences in the geographical conditions, density of population, level of literacy, and requirement of the schools. Different Governments have prescribed different areas and limits to cater to their specific requirements. There is, thus, an element of flexibility in the concept of neighbourhood. The term “neighbourhood” cannot be defined in rigid terms, with clinical precision or mathematical exactitude. Ordinarily, the term 'neighbourhood' signifies a contiguous area or locality”, the Bench noted further.
It found that the petitioner gave her correct address and documents, that the distance error could be inadvertent and bona fide, and that choosing distant schools could not count against her. It also noted that over four months had passed, that the State said no other private unaided school could accommodate the child, and that the school had been slow to raise its objections.
The petition was allowed and the impugned order set aside. The respondents, including the school, must admit the child within one week. No costs were ordered.
Cause Title: Karuna Sumit Kamble v. The Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:42896)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Sudhanva Bedekar with Advocate Swapnil Shanbhag.
Respondent: Savita Prabhune, AGP, Senior Advocate Deepa Chavan with Advocates R. Nathani and Siddhi Dawane, instructed by Divekar and Co.