Case Name: LUCKNOW PUBLIC SCHOOL, ELDICO AND ANR. V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Petition Number: Special Leave Petitionition (C) @ Diary No. 60657 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 422
Date of Judgment: 28.04.26
Coram: HON’BLE MR. J. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & HON’BLE MR. J. ALOK ARADHE
INTRODUCTION
This case revolves around the statutory and constitutional obligation of “neighbourhood school” to admit children allotted to it by the State Government under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009). The Supreme Court ruled that once the state has completed the selection and allocation process, the school cannot sit on appeal over the State decision and must grant admission immediately. The judgment is a restatement of the Court’s earlier ruling on the 25% reservation for children from disadvantaged groups or weaker sections. The Court reiterated the national mission of ensuring elementary education for all and reinforces the idea that the neighbourhood school is a constitutional instrument of equality and social integration.
FACTS
In this case, respondent no. 5 (the student) applied for admission to a pre-primary class in a neighborhood school for the academic year 2024-25 under the procedures prescribed by the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. She was duly selected and her name also appeared on the published list forwarded by the Basic Education Department of UP, to Lucknow Public School, Eldico for the admission. However, when the student approached the school, the school refused to grant admission or allow the student to attend classes, citing some uncertainty about the student’s eligibility. The student then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court praying for a direction to the State and the school authorities to grant admission. The High Court allowed the writ petition and ruled in favour of the student, stating that schools cannot sit in appeal over the State Government’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether a private unaided neighbourhood school can delay or deny admission to a student allotted by the State Government under RTE Act, 2009 and the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011 while it contests the student’s eligibility ?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The petitioners argued that there was uncertainty regarding the student’s eligibility criteria and that the school had legitimate doubts about the correctness of the State’s selection. They submitted that the school should be allowed to satisfy itself about the eligibility of the students before admitting her and shouldn’t be forced to admit students without verifying their credentials, otherwise the statutory scheme would be undermined.
The respondents contended that once a student is selected and allotted by the State Government following the process prescribed under rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011, the school has no residual discretion to refuse admission. The respondents emphasized their arguments on the fact that Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 and Rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011 best the power of the eligibility determination in the State and that 25% reservation is a transformative and constitutionally-inspired policy of social integration.
JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the School and upheld the ruling of the High Court directing the school to grant admission to the student immediately. The Court began by citing Right to Education under Article 21A of the Constitution, which imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure free and compulsory education to all children between six and fourteen years of age. The court referred to its own judgment in the case of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2026 INSC 56, wherein it was observed that while right to elementary education is a positive right, it simultaneously leads to 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.
Furthermore, the Court examined Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009 which requires every private unaided neighbourhood schools to mandatorily admit at least 25% of the strength of the entry-level class from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups and provide free education until completion of the elementary education. While under Rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011 the admission process is required to be transparent with schools maintaining and publishing lists of applicants and informing students in writing if they didn’t get admission. The Court also stressed that private schools don’t have power to sit in appeal over the government’s scrutiny process.
The Supreme Court observed that if the school has genuine concerns about student’s eligibility, it may make a representation to the concerned authority, but it must still admit such student in the meantime and emphasized that delay in student’s admission undermines the constitutional right of education, which implies that procedural objections cannot be used to frustrate substantive rights. The Court also noted that the judiciary must make exceptional efforts to ensure justice in order to ensure that parents and children are not denied these rights due to institutional delay and
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, observing that the right to education under Article 21A would be meaningless if schools were allowed to obstruct the process of admission. The Court dismissed the school’s SLP and the school was then ordered to comply with the admission mandate. This judgment solidifies the principle that social justice through education overrides the administrative hesitations of private educational institutions and the Court must ensure that the admission process is easy, effective and speedy for children from weaker and disadvantaged groups.
