The Supreme Court (SC) is re-examining the exclusion of minority institutions from the Right to Education (RTE) Act, raising critical questions about the implications for universal elementary education and social inclusivity. A two-judge bench has expressed serious doubts about a 2014 verdict by a five-judge Constitution Bench, which had held that the RTE Act did not apply to religious and linguistic minority educational institutions. This earlier ruling, according to the current bench, "strikes at the heart of good quality universal elementary education" and has far-reaching consequences that warrant a re-evaluation.
The core issue revolves around whether exempting minority institutions from the RTE Act undermines the fundamental right to education guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution. Article 21A mandates the state to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen. The RTE Act, enacted to give effect to this right, ensures that children receive a range of entitlements, including basic infrastructure, trained teachers, books, uniforms, and mid-day meals.
However, minority schools, if excluded from the RTE Act's purview, are not necessarily bound to provide these facilities. This discrepancy raises concerns that students in these institutions may be deprived of essential resources and a standard quality of education. The Supreme Court has noted that while some minority schools might offer certain facilities as mandated by the RTE Act, others may fall short, leaving their students without access to these crucial benefits. The court emphasized that these benefits are not mere amenities but affirmations of belonging, equality, and recognition for many students.
Furthermore, the RTE Act ensures common curricular standards through notified academic authorities, guaranteeing quality education based on constitutional values. Minority institutions, operating without such uniform guidelines, may leave children and parents uncertain about the content and quality of education, potentially disconnecting them from the national framework of universal learning.
The Supreme Court has also voiced concerns that the exemption has created a loophole that is being misused. It has been observed that there has been a surge in institutions seeking minority status to bypass the obligations imposed by the RTE Act. The court noted that minority status seems to have become a vehicle for circumventing the mandate of the RTE Act and opening up a situation whereby multiple institutions have sought to acquire minority status to become autonomous. The court cautioned against creating "enclaves of privilege" at the expense of national developmental goals.
The court also framed questions for determination by a larger bench, including whether the RTE Act infringes the rights of minorities, religious or linguistic, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The bench said that Article 30(1) has never been construed as conferring blanket immunity on minority institutions from all forms of regulation.
The Supreme Court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to decide whether a larger bench reference is warranted. The apex court has also clarified that the provisions of the RTE Act will have to be complied with by all schools except those established and administered by minorities until the larger bench decides on the matter. The court also addressed the issue of teachers' eligibility, stating that teachers with less than five years of service left may continue in service until they reach superannuation without qualifying for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
