The Madras High Court has held that the funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Government's share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020. The High Court has also ordered the Centre to consider de-linking the RTE component of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme and disburse the funds accordingly.

The writ petition before the High Court was filed in public interest, whereby the petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to initiate the admission process for the academic year 2024-25.

The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan said, “...we call upon the Central Government to discharge its obligations under the Act. It is true that implementation of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is aligned to NEP 2020. But then, obligation under RTE Act is independent by itself. Section 7 of the Act states that the Central Government and the State Governments have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 7(3) of the Act mandates that the Central Government shall provide to the State Government as grant in aid of revenues such percentage of expenditure referred in sub-section 2 as it may determine from time to time in consultation of the State Governments. Therefore, funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Government's share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020. Since the State Government had already filed a suit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this regard.”

Advocate N. Ponraj represented the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader J. Ravindran represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The issue flagged by the petitioner was that the process of admission under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, does not commence in time. It was pointed out that although the admission of children must take place before the commencement of the academic year, till the second week of May, 2025, steps have not been taken to receive online applications for admissions under the Act.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the 2009 Act, the Bench explained that in view of the mandate set out in Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, private school managements have been admitting children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups and are providing education to them to the extent of 25% of the strength in entry level classes without charging fees. As per the mandate of Section 12(2) of the Act, the State Government is obliged to reimburse them.

On a perusal of the statutory provisions in the light of the various precedents, the Bench noted that the State Government is obliged to commence the admission process under the RTE Act well in time so that the children admitted under this quota can join the respective neighborhood schools at the very commencement of the academic year. “The State government has the primary responsibility under Section 7(5) of the Act to be responsible to provide funds for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the State Government is directed to make reimbursements by adhering to the timeline laid down in the statute. The quantum of reimbursement cannot be arbitrary. It has to be as per Section 12(2) of the Act r/w. Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011”, it said.

It was further noticed that the total sum for the financial year 2024-25 towards SSS is Rs 3585.99 crores. The share of the Central Government is reported to be Rs. 2,151.59 crores. Noting that the RTE component must be less than Rs. 200 crores, the Bench held that there cannot be any difficulty in releasing the Central Government's share under this head. “We, therefore, direct the Central Government to consider de-linking the RTE component of SSS and disburse the funds accordingly”, it held while disposing of the writ petition.

Cause Title: V. Eswaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: W.P.No.18427 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate N. Ponraj

Respondent: Additional Government Pleader J. Ravindran, Special Government Pleader U.M. Ravichandran, Additional Solicitor General of India AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Panel Counsel Dr. G. Babu

Click here to read/download Order




Madras High CourtJustice G.R. SwaminathanJustice V. Lakshminarayanan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.