The Allahabad High Court ruled that the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), apply to private unaided schools, and that affiliating Board guidelines, including those about attendance, are not superseding the Act.
A single-judge bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court, who referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs Union of India and another (2012), issued this verdict, LiveLaw reports.
The petitioners, two students of Class 6 and Class 9, filed a petition to the High Court challenging their detention from the 2024-25 examination session, despite their outstanding sportsmanship and academic record.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners were being punished for pursuing a hobby of playing cricket.
It was contended that the detention violated the RTE Act and that if any improvement was required in their academic performance, they should have been given the opportunity for re-examination.
“Well within rights to detain petitioners,” the school argued
Counsel for the respondent school stated that neither student had the required attendance and did not qualify for the examination, and that not detaining students like the petitioners had an impact on the institution's academic schedule and reputation.
It was also maintained that just Section 12 of the RTE Act (Extent of school's responsibility for free and compulsory education) applied to private unaided schools, rather than the full Act.
Moreover, the school also argued that neither student met the 75 per cent minimum attendance criteria, mandated by both the Indian Council of Secondary Education (ICSE) norms, and the school's own internal disciplinary rules mandated that students have 90 per cent attendance to be promoted to the next class.
Noting the Act's mandate, the Court observed that Section 16 of the RTE Act requires regular examinations in classes 5 and 8, as well as the holding back of students in specific situations. Section 16(2) allows for a re-examination if a student fails the examination within two months of the results being declared.
Section 16(3) gives authority to state governments to establish procedures for detaining students who fail re-examination in classes 6 and 8; nevertheless, no student may be detained until elementary school.
“No provision in State laws”: Court
Based on Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs Union of India and other cases, the Court determined that the full RTE Act applied to the respondent school and that Section 16(2) was clearly violated.
The Court additionally stated that because there was no prescription by the State Government in UP under Section 16(3), petitioners were covered by Section 16(2) and should have been detained.
The Court allowed the writ petition and instructed that petitioner 1 be admitted to Class 6 after providing him a two-month re-examination term.
For petitioner 2, the court ruled that he should be readmitted to Class 9 because the required records of students graduating Class 9 have already been posted to the ICSE website, and petitioner may be unable to take the Class 10 examination this academic year.
