Delhi High Court Asks School To Readmit Child Diagnosed With Mild Autism, Says ‘Inclusive Education’ Is About Belongingness

The Petition filed before the High Court sought issuance of an order directing the respondent, GD Goenka Public School, to readmit and allow the petitioner in class 1 or any of the age-appropriate classes in terms of Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan said, “It needs no emphasis that ‘inclusive education’ is not merely about access to education; it is about belongingness. It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all.

Advocate Ashok Agarwal represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kamal Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was born as a normal child in the year 2017, and with the passage of time, the petitioner experienced delayed milestones in sitting, walking and speech. A doctor suspected that the petitioner was suffering from Autism. The petitioner was admitted to the respondent school in the Academic Session 2021-22 under the “Sibling Clause”. The parents of the petitioner at the time of admission mentioned the fact of speech delay in the school forms. In December 2021, the petitioner was diagnosed with mild autism, whereafter she was recommended various therapies. Petitioner’s mother was stated to have met the Principal of the school several times, requesting support in the form of a shadow teacher or allowing a Special Educator to assist her in the classroom, which did not elicit any response.

Further case propounded by the petitioner was that due to constant pressure and lack of support from the school, the education of the petitioner was discontinued; however, it was claimed that fee of the petitioner was paid till March 2023. The petitioner, through her mother/next friend, had also sent a legal notice to the Principal of the school calling upon her to allow the petitioner to resume her classes in Class I in the academic year 2024-25. It was the school’s case that the since the parents of the petitioner did not send the child to school during anytime between January 1, 2023 till date, therefore, there was no lien on the seat in favour of a candidate who did not attend school for a long period of more than one year.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Bench said, “ It is thus, the statutory duty of the educational institutions funded and recognized by the government to provide best educational environment to the children with disabilities and to motivate them to achieve their dreams like any other normal child.”

The Bench noted that the petitioner had tried for admission under the CWSN category only when the doors of the school were shut on her. Even when the petitioner was coincidentally allotted respondent/school under CWSN category through draw of lots, the respondent school betraying the hope of the petitioner apprised DoE that the petitioner was already studying in the Respondent-School under the General category having taken admission in the academic session 2021-22, however, she showed aggressive and unpredictable behavior.

Further, the designated committee, pursuant to the order of the Court had opined that it was in the best interest of the child that she gets age-appropriate class placement to study in the present school along with a shadow teacher’s support. In addition, the committee had also recommended that the school must ensure that the child avails all accommodations/adaptations to, a child with special needs is entitled.

“The parents' repeated communications, willingness to provide a shadow teacher, and continued readiness to pay fees even without attendance demonstrate unwavering intent to secure the petitioner’s right to education in an inclusive environment of the school, where her elder sibling is also studying”, it said while also adding, “Even if the petitioner was later allotted another school through the draw of lots under the CWSN category, that was part of a separate admission process, which the petitioner was possibly constrained to resort, when she did not get support from the school. But that does not extinguish her right to continue her education as a general category, fee-paying student in the very school she had already been admitted to, especially in the absence of any formal withdrawal or issuance of School Leaving Certificate.”

Considering that the ends of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to resume her education in the respondent school in an inclusive setup, the Bench ordered, “The respondent no.1/school is directed to readmit the petitioner, Aadriti Pathak, in Class I or in an age-appropriate class, as a feepaying student, within two weeks from the date of this judgment.”

Cause Title: Aadriti Pathak v. GD Goenka Public School & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5048)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ashok Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, Manoj Kumar, Ashna Khan

Respondent: Advocates Kamal Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Abhinav Sharma, Aakriti Jain

Click here to read/download Order