January 28 marks the day the Supreme Court of India first sat in 1950. Over the decades, its rulings have helped define how constitutional guarantees apply to everyday life, including children’s access to education and the equal rights of girls within that framework.
India’s right to education is anchored in Article 21A of the Constitution, which provides free and compulsory education for every child between the ages of six and fourteen. Over time, this provision has been interpreted not merely as a policy goal, but as a justiciable right that courts can enforce when access to education is denied.
In a Supreme Court order dated January 2, 2025, arising from a matrimonial dispute involving an estranged couple and their daughter, the court held that parents, irrespective of individual differences, carry a moral and fiscal obligation to support their child’s education within their financial capacity. In the same context, the court affirmed that a daughter’s claim to educational support is legally enforceable, reinforcing the principle that access to education cannot be denied on the basis of gender or treated as discretionary within the family.
This approach rests on a basic principle. Educational systems, and the decisions taken within them, must conform to constitutional mandates. When disputes raise questions of constitutional freedoms or rights, the Supreme Court may review them and clarify how far the state, and education authorities, can go.
Two legal doctrines often sit in the background of education-related reasoning. The first is parens patriae, which treats the state as having an inherent responsibility to act for the welfare of those under its protection, including minor children. Under this idea, legislatures can frame laws and regulations for the common good, including mandatory school attendance, and can also act for those who cannot legally act on their own behalf. The second is in loco parentis, under which school boards and education authorities may act in the parents’ stead during schooling. This power is not unlimited. State action must be supported by a rational or compelling state interest before a child’s or a parent’s rights can be restricted.
Read together, these principles make the court’s emphasis on girls’ education clearer. Education equips girls with the skills and confidence to make informed decisions about their lives and careers, enabling financial independence. When families deny daughters access to education, it is not only a social wrong. It also conflicts with constitutional guarantees that courts are expected to uphold.
Other laws and public measures reinforce this constitutional direction. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, seeks to prevent early marriages that often disrupt schooling. The Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme operates as a national push to promote the education of girls.
The right to education also intersects with other legal rights. Property rights under the Hindu Succession Act include equal shares of ancestral property for daughters. In that wider legal context, the court’s stance on parental responsibility strengthens the enforcement of fundamental rights by treating children’s education, including a daughter’s education, as an obligation that cannot be brushed aside as a private family choice.
This is why the court’s approach matters beyond the immediate facts. It frames girls’ education as a constitutional commitment backed by enforceable responsibility, and it places that responsibility where denial often begins, inside the family.