RTE Act and Minority Educational Institutions

Why in the News?

1. The Supreme Court has questioned a 2014 judgment (Pramati case) which had kept minority schools outside the scope of the Right to Education Act (RTE), 2009.
2. The Court was hearing cases about whether the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) should be mandatory for teachers in minority schools and for in-service teachers in other schools.
3. The issue has now been referred to a larger Bench to decide if minority schools should be brought under the RTE Act.

Key Highlights

1. What the Court decided now (TET issue)
   1. The Bench said the question of whether RTE applies to minority schools must be decided by a larger Bench.
   2. For non-minority schools:
      1. Teachers with less than 5 years of service left can continue without passing the TET, but they won’t get promotions without it.
      2. Teachers with more than 5 years of service left must clear TET within 2 years.

• All new appointments and promotions will require TET.

2. Why the 2014 ruling is under doubt
   1. The earlier ruling exempted minority institutions completely from RTE.
   2. The new Bench felt this was “legally suspect” because it looked only at one section instead of the whole Act.
   3. It said such a blanket exemption denies children in minority schools the protections of Article 21A (Right to Education).
3. Legal background
   1. RTE Act (2009): Free education for 6–14 years, 25% seats reserved in private schools for children from weaker sections, minimum standards for teachers, infrastructure, and ban on corporal punishment.
   2. 2012 ruling: Protected unaided minority institutions from the 25% quota.
   3. 2014 Pramati case: Went further and kept all minority institutions (aided or unaided) outside the RTE Act.
4. Concerns and misuse
   1. Studies show that many minority schools admit mostly non-minority children and only a small share from disadvantaged groups.
   2. Some schools took minority status mainly to escape RTE requirements, while continuing as elite institutions.
5. What happens next
   1. A larger Bench will decide how to balance the right of minorities to manage institutions (Article 30) with the right of children to education (Article 21A).
   2. Until then, RTE continues to apply to all schools except minority institutions.

Implications

1. For children:
   1. If minority schools come under RTE, students there will also benefit from norms on teacher quality, libraries, and safe schooling.
   2. Without this, children in such schools may remain outside the full protection of their right to education.
2. For minority institutions:
   1. They may have to follow minimum standards like TET, infrastructure norms, and pupil–teacher ratio, while still keeping their cultural and linguistic freedom.
   2. Misuse of minority status will be harder if courts tighten the rules.
3. For teachers:
   1. In-service teachers in non-minority schools must clear TET within a fixed timeline.
   2. Promotions and new jobs will depend on passing the TET, raising demand for teacher training.
4. For governments:
   1. If minority schools are included, states will need more funds for reimbursement of 25% quota seats.
   2. Authorities will also need stronger monitoring to check genuine minority status and ensure compliance.
5. For the Constitution:
   1. The larger Bench ruling will clarify how Articles 21A and 30 work together.
   2. It may shift the approach from giving minority schools a full exemption to ensuring minimum standards with autonomy.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reopened a major debate on the Right to Education Act and minority schools. The key question is whether minority institutions should remain fully exempt from RTE or be required to follow basic standards without losing their identity. The outcome will decide how India balances children’s fundamental right to education with the rights of minority communities to run their own schools.