Lucknow Public School, Eldico vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2026 INSC 422 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2026 @ DIARY NO. 60657 OF 2024

LUCKNOW PUBLIC SCHOOL, ELDICO AND ANR. ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. This is yet another occasion for us to reiterate the constitutional and

statutory obligation of a ‘neighbourhood school’ to give admission to

students forwarded by the State Government without any delay. Such an

obligation is consistent with the constitutional philosophy 1, Section 12 of

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 2, as

well as Rule 8 of the U.P Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Rules, 2011 3. For the reasons to follow, we have affirmed the

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.04.28 14:56:24 IST Reason:

1 Article 21A.

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘RTE Act, 2009’.

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP RTE Rules, 2011’.

Page 1 of 10 direction of the High Court to grant admission to the respondent without

any delay.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present Special Leave Petition are

that the respondent no. 5 (‘student’) applied to the Basic Education

Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, for admission into pre-primary class

in a neighbourhood school in accordance with the procedure prescribed

under UP RTE Rules, 2011 for the year 2024-25. The student was duly

selected, and the published list containing her name was sent to the

petitioner school for admission into the pre-primary class.

4. On being selected and allotted to the petitioner school, the student

approached the school for completing the admission formalities, but she

was neither given admission nor permitted to attend the classes on the

ground that there is some uncertainty about the student’s eligibility. Under

these circumstances the student preferred a writ petition4 praying for a

direction to the State and other authorities for granting admission into the

petitioner school. High Court allowed the writ petition primarily on the

ground that schools cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken by the State

Government. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows:

“8. Bare perusal of the Rules would indicate that in Chapter 4 the responsibility of schools and teachers have been provided wherein under Rule 7, the Schools are mandated to ensure that the children admitted in pursuance of Clause (c) of Section 12(1) of RTE Act, 2009 shall not be segregated from other children in the classroom nor shall their classes be held at place entirely

4 WRIT - C No. - 6121 of 2024. Page 2 of 10 different from classes held for other children and that such children are not discriminated from the list of the children and record of all such children has to be maintained by the schools. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 further provides that the process of admission of children shall be totally transparent and details of such children shall be maintained on a public website. It has further been provided that out of the total applicants, all the children who apply for admission but are not admitted for whatever reason shall be informed in writing with the reasons thereof and further it shall be binding for the school to follow the process of admission prescribed by the State Government from time to time.

9. Considering the entire scheme of the Act and Rules made thereunder, it is noticed that once the process of admission is completed and application forms have been duly scrutinized and list is prepared allocating the children the school and the said list being forwarded to the said school, the school has no option except to grant admission to the students.”

5. There is no gainsaying in stating that the right to education, a

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution,

will remain an empty promise if the mandate of the RTE Act, 2009 is not

worked out in its letter and spirit. Under Section 38 of the RTE Act, 2009,

States are empowered to notify rules for carrying out the provisions of this

Act. Exercising this power, the State of Uttar Pradesh notified UP RTE

Rules, 2011, containing various measures for admissions to

‘neighbourhood’ schools – encompassing regulations from the stage of

admission to completion of elementary education.

6. The process of admission of children and reimbursement of their

education is governed by Rule 8 of the UP RTE Rules, 2011, which is

extracted below for ready reference:

Page 3 of 10

“8. Admission of children and reimbursement of per-child expenditure by the State Government (1) The process of admission of children referred to in clauses

(b) and (c) of section 12 (1) shall be totally transparent. The detail of such children applying for admission shall be maintained by the school regularly, which shall include the name, address, sex, caste, date of birth of the child and the name, address, occupation and monthly income of father/mother/guardian, detail of whether child belongs to weaker section or disadvantaged group. Such information shall be made public through website.

Out of the total applicants, all the children who applied for admission, but not admitted for whatsoever reason, shall be informed in writing with the reason thereof. It shall also be binding for the school to follow the process of admission prescribed by the State Government from time to time. (2) The total annual recurring expenditure incurred by the State Government, from its own funds, and funds provided by the Central Government and by any other authority on elementary education in respect of all schools established, owned or controlled by it or by the local authority, divided by the total number of children enrolled in all such schools as on 30th September, shall be the per-child expenditure incurred by the State Government.” (emphasis supplied)

7. The mandate of the above Rule is clear. Once the government

assesses an application for admission under the 2009 Act, the school shall

proceed and be bound by other provisions as laid from time to time. The

limited window for the school to reconsider the government’s decision is a

conscious choice of the State to avoid delays in securing the children's

right to education.

8. This regulatory framework finds its normative strength in the

neighbourhood school concept enshrined under the RTE Act, 2009 5,

which is a deliberate statutory conception to operationalise equality of

5 See, generally, Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009.

Page 4 of 10 status and social integration during a child’s formative years. By

mandating that schools admit children from weaker and disadvantaged

sections to the extent of at least twenty-five percent of class strength, the

law seeks to transform the social structure of our society. This model

envisages the school as a common civic space that breaks down

entrenched barriers of caste, class, and gender, thereby advancing

substantive social justice.

9. The obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to admit children

belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of our society, to the

extent of twenty-five percent of the class strength, under Section 12 of the

RTE Act, 2009 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social

structure of our society. Earnest implementation can truly be

transformative. It is not only a step towards educating young India, but also

a substantive measure in securing the preambular objective of ‘equality of

status’. The constitutional declaration of the right under Article 21A,

followed by the statutory mandate under Section 3 of the Act for free and

compulsory elementary education can be realised only with effective

implementation of the provisions of the Act. Ensuring admission of such

students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate

government and the local authority. Equally, Courts, be it constitutional or

civil, must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief

to parents who complain of denial of the right.

Page 5 of 10

10. In Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.6, it was held

that the consequence of identifying the right to elementary education as a

positive right is the recognition of co-relative duties and identification of

five duty bearers, being (i) the appropriate government, (ii) the local

authority, (iii) the neighbourhood schools, (iv) the parents/guardians, and

(v) the primary school teachers. It is important to highlight the obligations

and duties of these duty bearers in detail not only for accountability, but

also to ensure that they have sufficient support from the Government and

the society.7

10.1 The first duty bearer; is the “appropriate Government”. The duty of

the appropriate Government to establish neighbourhood schools is

prescribed in Section 68. The financial responsibilities under the Act are

shared between the Central and the State Governments under Section 7.

Further duties upon establishing the neighbourhood schools are

prescribed in Section 8, which inter alia mandate that the appropriate

government shall, “ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as

specified in Section 6”.9

6 2026 INSC 56.

7 Para 6 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

8“Section 6. Duty of appropriate Government and local authority to establish school - For carrying

out the provisions of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish, within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act.” 9 Para 6.1 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

Page 6 of 10 10.2 The second duty bearer; is the “local authority”10. To ensure

implementation of the right at the grassroot level, Section 9 obligates the

local authority to ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as

specified in Section 6 (Section 9(b)), maintain records of children up to the

age of fourteen years (Section 9(d)) and also ensure and monitor

admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every

child residing within its jurisdiction (Section 9(e)). 11

10.3 The third duty bearer; is the neighbourhood school. Under Section

12, a neighbourhood school is impressed with the responsibility of

providing free and compulsory education. Section 12 mandates that the

“neighbourhood schools” shall admit in Class I, to the extent of at least

twenty-five percent of the strength of that class, children belonging to

weaker section and disadvantaged group for free and compulsory

education. We will be examining this obligation of the school under

Section 12(1)(c) in detail. 12

10.4 The fourth duty bearer; is the Parent. This duty is now constitutionally

recognised in Article 51A(k) of the Constitution. 13

10 Section 2(h) -“local authority” means a Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council or Zila Parishad

or Nagar Panchayat or Panchayat, by whatever name called, and includes such other authority or body having administrative control over the school or empowered by or under any law for the time being in force to function as a local authority in any city, town or village; 11 Para 6.2 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

12 Para 6.3 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

13 Para 6.4 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

Page 7 of 10 10.5 The fifth duty bearer; is the elementary school teacher. There is no

human resource or value higher than development of a student’s mind and

character. Therefore, the elementary school teachers have the most

important role in nation building.14

11. It is necessary to underscore two foundational constitutional values

that Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 is designed to articulate and secure.

The first, in unequivocal terms, mandates that not less than twenty-five

percent of the strength of an entry-level class shall be reserved for and

filled by children belonging to “weaker sections” and “disadvantaged

groups”, who are thereby guaranteed access to free elementary

education. The second is that such children are to be admitted to unaided

schools in their neighbourhood, thereby embedding within the statutory

framework the principle that the constitutional promise of education under

Article 21A is to be realised through common local schools rather than

segregated or parallel systems. The legislative choice to implement the

right to free and compulsory education through neighbourhood schools is

not merely administrative; it is a deliberate constitutional strategy to

operationalise equality of status, dignity, and social integration among

children in their formative years.15

14 Para 6.5 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

15 Para 7 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

Page 8 of 10

12. The mandate under Section 12 of the Act must be enforced with

conviction and commitment. We have to ensure admission of at least

twenty-five percent of class strength in unaided schools with children of

weaker and disadvantaged groups. This is certainly a national mission.

Effective implementation of the statutory policy will be transformative and,

in this regard, each one of us, be it the institution or an individual, be it the

Central or the State Governments, Advisory Councils or Commissions are

duty bearers. The most important role is of the neighbourhood schools. In

this mission, the judiciary also bears the burden to ensure that the process

of admission is easily accessible, effective and efficient. Court must also

ensure that judicial remedies against inaction or inefficiency are redressed

effectively and expeditiously.16

13. Effective implementation requires that schools publish available

seats well in advance and that any denial of admission be recorded with

specific reasons, which must be reviewed by educational authorities within

strict timelines to ensure accountability. Ultimately, the success of the RTE

legislation depends on ensuring that children's participation in the

classroom is evident and meaningful.

14. It is in the above light we find that for schools like the petitioner that

may have some disagreement with the selection by the Government, can

16 Para 10 of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar (supra).

Page 9 of 10 make representation to the concerned authority, but they ought not wait

for the outcome of such a representation and are mandated to grant

admission to the student whose name finds mention in list forwarded to

the school in the interregnum. This immediacy is essential to actualise the

promise of Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to interfere

with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Special

Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.

16. No orders as to costs.

………………………………....J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 28, 2026.

Page 10 of 10