133 Writ Petitions In 8 Months: Bombay High Court Flags Systemic Delay In RTE Reimbursement, Directs State To Set Up Review Committee
The Bench noted that per-child reimbursement rate frozen at ₹17,670 since 2016-17 despite rising educational costs.
Justice R.I. Chagla, Justice Farhan P. Dubash, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has noted that no fewer than 133 writ petitions were instituted before it between January 1, 2026 and August 6, 2026 alone, seeking directions for release of reimbursement to schools under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, flagging the figure as evidence of a deep systemic failure in the State's reimbursement mechanism.
The Bench, accordingly, directed the Maharashtra Government to constitute a Committee of senior officers from the Finance and School Education Departments to comprehensively review the reimbursement process, noting that the per-child reimbursement rate has remained frozen at ₹17,670 since the 2016-17 academic year despite substantial escalation in educational costs since.
A Division Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash observed, “The consequences of such delay are evident from the repeated litigation reaching this Court. The Registry has informed us that between 1 st January 2026 and 6th August 2026 alone, no fewer than 133 Writ Petitions have been instituted seeking directions for release of reimbursement under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act. A substantial number of those petitions have already been disposed of by directing the State Authorities to process and release the admissible amounts within stipulated timelines. The present Contempt Petition is itself a consequence of the failure to comply with one such order. Such recurring litigation not only imposes avoidable hardship upon educational institutions but also results in unnecessary consumption of judicial time in matters which ought ordinarily to be resolved administratively”.
“We are of the considered view that unless the reimbursement mechanism is made time-bound, the legislative object underlying Section 12 of the RTE Act is liable to be seriously undermined…”, the Bench said.
Advocate Gaurav Sinha appeared for the petitioners and Kavita N. Solunke, Additional GP appeared for the respondent.
The Petitioners, Om Education Society and other schools, had earlier obtained an order dated March 26, 2026 in Writ Petition, whereby the State had undertaken to reimburse pending dues aggregating ₹3,65,75,530 owed to three of the Petitioner schools under the RTE Act, within eight weeks from April 1, 2026, i.e., by May 27, 2026. When the State failed to comply, the Petitioners instituted the present Contempt Petition alleging wilful breach of the order.
On the date of hearing, the Additional Government Pleader, on instructions from the Under Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, who was personally present in Court, stated that the State would release the admissible amount within four weeks, and in any event not later than September 4, 2026.
The Court accepted this statement as an undertaking and listed the matter for reporting compliance on September 7, 2026, substantially resolving the Contempt Petition.
Notwithstanding the resolution of the immediate contempt proceeding, the Bench used the occasion to address what it described as a recurring issue repeatedly engaging the Court's attention. “…The statutory obligation cast upon private unaided schools to provide free education to children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups is inseparably linked with the corresponding statutory obligation of the State to reimburse the eligible expenditure. The efficacy of one cannot be divorced from the other. Delayed reimbursement over prolonged periods inevitably affects the financial viability of institutions which continue to discharge their statutory obligations in the meantime. The object of the RTE Act is to facilitate, and not discourage, participation of private educational institutions in the implementation of this important social welfare measure”, the Bench noted.
The Court directed the State Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing reimbursement mechanism, examining: prescription of definite timelines at every processing stage from the Education Officer up to final release of funds; establishment of a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with such timelines; and the adequacy of the reimbursement amount itself, noting it had remained unchanged at ₹17,670 per child since the 2016-17 academic year.
The State was directed to constitute a committee comprising senior officers of the Finance Department and the School Education and Sports Department, which may invite representations from recognised associations representing unaided schools and other stakeholders, with the exercise expected to be completed preferably before the end of calendar year 2026.
Cause Title: Om Education Society & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Contempt Petition No. 408 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 3834 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: Gaurav Sinha, Advocate.
Respondents: Kavita N. Solunke, Additional GP, V.G. Badgujar, AGP, Anirudha Kulkarni, Advocates.