Provisions Of RTE Act Must Be Complied By All Schools Except Schools Established By Minority Till Reference Decided: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) must be complied with by all the schools except the schools established and administered by the minority till the Reference is decided.

The Court held thus while referring the dispute to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and urging to consider whether the issues warrant reference to a larger Bench.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.”

The Bench also held that the TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) is one of the minimum qualifications that may be prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act.

Case Background

The Civil Appeals in this case, challenged the Judgments/Orders of High Courts on multiple proceedings instituted before them. Inter alia, questions as regards applicability of the TET to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is a mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, were under consideration in such proceedings. The Appellants were minority educational institutions who were aggrieved because they were not allowed to recruit teachers who have not qualified in the TET; authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also minority institutions, whether aided or unaided; and individual teachers, who were appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 being enforced, claiming that the TET qualification cannot be made a mandatory requirement for the purposes of their promotion.

Issues for Consideration

The following two issues arose for consideration before the Apex Court –

a. Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify the TET? If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect any of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the Constitution of India?

b. Whether teachers appointed much prior to issuance of Notification No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N & S) dated 29th July, 2011 by the National Council for Teacher Education4 under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act read with the newly inserted proviso (second proviso) in Section 23(2) and having years of teaching experience (say, 25 to 30 years) are required to qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion?

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the above issues, remarked, “… the true impact and legacy of a judicial pronouncement lies not merely in the precision of its reasoning, but by whether it stands the test of time; whether, years after its pronouncement, it continues to respond meaningfully to the problem it set out to address and serve the ends of justice or has failed to do so. The test of such a decision is whether it has alleviated or aggravated the practical challenges it sought to remedy and lived realities it endeavoured to shape.”

The Court noted that the rights under Article 30(1), not being absolute, cannot be claimed to the complete exclusion of Article 21A and the former cannot be construed as overriding the mandate of the latter. It added by saying that Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, is undoubtedly a vital part of the constitutional promise to preserve linguistic and religious diversity; however, this right, like all others under Part III, is not absolute.

“It must be read in harmony with other Fundamental Rights and constitutional goals. When minority institutions engage in the act of imparting education, particularly elementary education, they necessarily operate within a shared constitutional ecosystem. To argue that Article 30(1) grants the minority institutions immunity from all statutory frameworks aimed at securing the right to education under Article 21A or that there can be no restrictions imposed under Article 19(6) would be to prioritize one right over another, thereby undermining the right to education under Article 21A”, it further said.

The Court observed that the vision of universal elementary education under Article 21A, indubitably, cannot be achieved by the State alone, in isolation and education, especially at the foundational level, is a shared constitutional responsibility.

“Minority institutions, while retaining their autonomy in matters essential to their cultural and linguistic identity, do not operate in a vacuum. Once they enter the realm of formal schooling and benefit from recognition, affiliation, or aid from the State, they partake in the broader constitutional project of building an inclusive and educated society. It would therefore be constitutionally untenable to argue that such institutions remain unaffected by frameworks such as the RTE Act through which the State seeks to discharge its obligations. Reasonable participation in this vision does not and cannot dilute its institutional character”, it enunciated.

The Court reiterated that education would be meaningless if it is not accompanied by quality education, which is primarily dependent on qualified and well-trained teachers and it is the State's constitutional obligation to ensure that educational institutions maintain high teaching standards, and appointments of teachers should strictly adhere to prescribed qualifications to maintain these educational standards.

“As a logical corollary to the above, it is axiomatic that those in-service teachers who aspire for promotion, irrespective of the length of their service, have to qualify the TET in order to be eligible to have their candidature considered for promotion”, it said.

The Court was of the opinion that the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided and its implementation does not erode—let alone annihilate—the minority character protected under Article 30(1).

“On the contrary, applying the RTE Act aligns with the purposive interpretation of Article 30(1), which was never meant to shield institutions from reasonable regulation in pursuit of constitutional goals. There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1); both can and must co-exist mutually”, it added.

The Court further noted that regulation in the form of norms and standards to ensure quality of education, does not dilute the minority character of an institution, and in fact is a necessary feature of the right to education, as understood both domestically, and internationally.

Difference between Appointment & Recruitment

The Court explained, “Appointment and recruitment are two distinct but not unrelated concepts. Recruitment is the broader process of which selection is a part that culminates in an appointment. Recruitment can be carried out from various sources, which are broadly classified into internal and external sources. Internal sources would comprise individuals who are already employed within the organization. This would include an appointment by promotion or transfer. External sources, on the other hand, consist of individuals who are not currently in the service of the recruiting organization. Direct recruitment is an appointment from external sources or from open market, so to say.”

The Court said that it does not find any reason to hold that the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Council would apply only for initial appointment and not for promotion.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court reiterated and held that, “… the TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher in a school. Only upon a person obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher.”

The Court, therefore, urged the CJI to consider the desirability as to whether the issues formulated hereunder, or such other issues as may be deemed relevant, do warrant reference to a larger Bench –

a. Whether the Judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) exempting minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, from the purview of the entirety of the RTE Act does require reconsideration for the reasons assigned?

b. Whether the RTE Act infringes the rights of minorities, religious or linguistic, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution? And, assuming that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act suffers from the vice of encroaching upon minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution, whether Section 12(1)(c) should have been read down to include children of the particular minority community who also belong to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood, to save it from being declared ultra vires such minority rights?

c. What is the effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) of the Constitution in the context of the declaration made in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) that the RTE Act would not be applicable to aided minority educational institutions?

d. Whether, in the absence of any discussion in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) regarding unconstitutionality of the other provisions of the RTE Act, except Section 12(1)(c), the entirety of the enactment should have been declared ultra vires minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution?

The Court directed that those teachers who have less than five years’ service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, it clarified that if any such teacher (having less than five years’ service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.

“… those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals.

Cause Title- Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1063)

Appearance:

Attorney General R Venkataramani, Senior Advocates ANS Nadkarni, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Jaideep Gupta, K. Parameshwar, K. Radhakrishnan, Nachiketa Joshi, P. Wilson, S. Nagamuthu, Shankaran, AORs Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Ankit Goel, Asha Gopalan Nair, Ayush Anand, D. Kumanan, Garvesh Kabra, M. P. Parthiban, M. Yogesh Kanna, Neelam Singh, Pragya Baghel, Rahul Joshi, Rakesh Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Shalini Chandra, Sudarshan Lamba, Syed Mehdi Imam, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Umesh Dubey, Advocates Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Aditya Kashyap, Alabhya Dhamija, Amol Chitale, Ananya Arora, Apoorv Malhotra, Arihant Jain, Ashok Kumar, Bhaskar Gautam, Bharat Bhushan Mishra, Bhoopesh Pandey, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, Deepika Kalia, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Jitesh Sharma, Kanu Agrawal, Kartikay Aggarwal, Krishan Kant Kumar, L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Lokesh Krishna, Madhumeet Kaur, Mohd Parvez Dabas, Monu Kumar, Mugundhan, N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Nivedita Nair, Oorjaswi Goswani, Palak Mathur, Parth Kaushik, Parth Sarathi, Pratyaksh Semwal, Praneet Pranav, R. Ramachandran, Racheeta Chawla, Raman Yadav, Riddi Bose, Sai Shashank V, Sampriti Bakshi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Santosh Kumar, Sarthak Sharma, Satvika Thakur, Shivani Mishra, Shreya Gupta, Shuchi Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Soumya Gulati, Sudeep Chandra, Tanisha Gopal, T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Tushar Srivastava, Vasudha Singh, Vaishnavi, Vatsal Joshi, Vinamra Kopariha, Vishal Sinha, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Vivek Kumar Pandey, and Yashika Varshney.

Click here to read/download the Judgment