CASE BRIEF: SOCIETY FOR UN-AIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, 2012 (6) SCC 1

INTRODUCTION

Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in this decision. This clause mandates that all schools, whether they are state-funded or private, must admit a minimum of twenty-five percent of their student body from disadvantaged groups. Due to the fact that this would represent a violation of the right of minority groups to establish private schools as outlined in the Indian Constitution, the Court decided that the Right to Education Act could not be written in such a way that it would require private minority schools to meet a quota of twenty-five percent.

Based on directive ideas, the Indian Constitution is a social service constitution that precisely and orderly expresses economic rights. The general public and underprivileged groups would have easier access to socioeconomic resources according to the welfare laws passed by the parliament. The RTE Act’s comments on unaided non-minority institutions are the main topic of this case study of the Society of Unaided Private Institutions of Rajasthan v. Union of India. The case commentator analyzed the statement using a three-tiered method.

FACTS

The Constitutionality of Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) was contested by the Society for Unaided Private Schools, an association of privately run schools. The association argued that the imposition of quotas on private schools through regulatory requirements was a violation of the right to practice any profession or occupation free from interference from the government, as outlined in Article 19 of the Constitution, as well as the right of minority groups to establish and administer schools, as outlined in Article 30 of the Constitution.

The Right to Education Act mandated that every kid shall be able to get an education that is both free and mandatory in a neighborhood school until they have completed their elementary schooling. All recognized schools, including unaided schools (schools that did not receive any assistance from the government or local authorities), were required to admit 25 percent of their students from the disadvantaged groups in the neighborhood, and they were also required to provide complimentary and obligatory education to these children until they completed their elementary schooling. 

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether Section 12 (1)(C) of the Right to Education Act of 2009 violates the Art 19(1) (g) of the constitution?

• Imposing Restrictions on private, unaided schools for minority Groups violates Article 30 of the Constitution.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. 1. As stated in the petition, the petitioner asserted that Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act of 2009 was in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of occupation.
   2. Due to the fact that the restriction is only applicable to private institutions and not public ones, the petitioner argued that it violates the right to equality that is provided by Article 14 of the Constitution.

• The person who submitted the petition said that because there is no government reimbursement, providing economically disadvantaged students with free and mandatory instruction is incredibly challenging.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The legal counsel for the respondent stated that even when the government does not reimburse them, they are still required to carry out their obligations since, in the end, they are executing public duties.
2. The respondents contended that private schools were required to reserve seats for kids of a particular caste or religion and that it was illegal for them to discriminate against any pupils on the basis of their religion or caste.
3. Some of the respondents said that the manner in which private schools increased their tuition costs conveyed the impression that education was now turning into a business industry.

JUDGEMENT

In a ruling that was reached by a majority of the court, the constitutionality of the mandated quota was upheld despite the fact that it applies to both private and state-run schools. As a result, the Court came to the conclusion that the government had the authority to legally mandate that private schools set aside twenty-five percent of their available spots for students who come from underprivileged families.

The Court came to the conclusion that the Right to Education Act is “child-centric and not institution-centric,” which means that the provision of education to all children is a priority, regardless of the fact that it may place a burden on private schools. In view of the significance of the right to education, the court reaffirmed the significance of Article 21-A and determined that the burden placed on private schools to fulfill the quota was immaterial, considering the importance of the right to education.

The Supreme Court decided that the state has the authority to control private schools by setting reasonable restrictions in the public interest in accordance with Article 19(6). This is due to the fact that the establishment of a private school under Article 19 is a supplement to the principal task assigned to the state. Furthermore, the Court concluded that restricting private schools to a quota of twenty-five percent is in the public interest and constitutes a reasonable restriction for Article 19(6). Consequently, the Act of 2009 was considered to be constitutional and enforceable against private schools during this time period.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, differentiated between private schools and private minority schools, which were founded in accordance with Article 30 of the Constitution, and decided that the government cannot mandate private minority schools to fulfill a quota of twenty-five percent. To do so would be a violation of Article 30, which states that minority groups have the freedom to establish private schools without interference from the government. According to the reasoning of the court, Article 29(1) of the Constitution safeguards the right of minorities to preserve their language, script, or culture, and Article 30(1) safeguards their right to create and govern schools of their choosing. That being the case, placing a quota on such schools would result in a change in their nature, which would consequently constitute a violation of their rights.

CONCLUSION 

Reiterating that the principal task of the state is to offer free and compulsory education to all children, particularly those who are unable to finance elementary school, the Court stated that this requirement is its primary responsibility. In spite of the fact that Article 19, which provides the right to engage in any trade or profession, has a provision that allows for the establishment of private schools, the Court has determined that this right is only applicable in situations where the school is not for profit and operates on a charitable basis.

The Right to Education Act (RTE) has been the subject of some of the most significant and important decisions ever made. The Supreme Court of the United States issued a Reasoned Decision in this particular case after taking into consideration all sides of the argument. The court came to the conclusion that the government ought to reimburse unaided schools while simultaneously mandating that unaided schools comply with the standards. The overarching objective of this case is to ensure that children from unaided schools who are economically, religiously, or caste-backward are provided with an education that is both free and mandatory.