DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

           [2026] 2 S.C.R. 168 : 2026 INSC 56

                 Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar
                           v.
               State of Maharashtra & Ors.
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10105 of 2017)
                         13 January 2026
          [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
               Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Effective implementation of the mandate of s.12, Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ensuring admission of
at least twenty-five percent of class strength in unaided schools with
children of weaker and disadvantaged groups for free education.

                            Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Article 21A – Right to Education –
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 – s.12– Directions by Supreme Court for effective
implementation of s.12 and its mandate – Inaccessibility of
twenty-five percent of class strength in a neighbourhood
school to children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged
groups u/s.12 for multifarious reasons viz. online application
process, language barrier and lack of help desks to assist the
parents/guardians, lack of information about the availability
of seats, absence of transparency in the admission process –
Suggestions made by the amicus curiae and the Ld. Additional
Solicitor General highlighting the concerns and identifying
areas requiring improvement viz. implementation of s.12 by
the States/UTs and providing online portal for admission;
language; information and assistance; transparency;
establishment of help-desks and pro-active assistance during
the application stage etc. – National and State Commissions
for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) assigned with the
task of reviewing, monitoring and redressing the grievances
arising under the Act, issued Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) for implementation of s.12(1)(c), structured in three
stages, (i) the preparatory stage, (ii) processing applications,
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            169

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


     selection and admission and (iii) procedure after completion
     of admission:
     Held: The obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to admit
     children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections of the
     society, to the extent of twenty five percent of the class strength,
     u/s.12 has the extraordinary capacity to transform the social
     structure of the society – Ensuring admission of such students
     must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate
     government and the local authority – To ensure a smooth and
     transparent admission process and in order to enable eligible
     children to access the right of admission u/s.12(1)(c), the steps
     to be taken as regards the Preparatory Stage (Finalization of
     seats, Advertisement, Schedule of admission, Centralized online
     system, Criteria, Documents, Information about the school, Dispute
     settlement); Processing Applications, Selection and Admission
     (Help-desks; Selection criteria; Scrutiny of applications, Window
     for correction of defects, Dispute resolution); After Completion of
     Admission Process (Speaking order, Admission process, Initiation
     of inquiry, Post-admission, Reimbursement, Finality of selection),
     enumerated – Appropriate authorities to prepare and issue, in
     consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs, as the case may be, as
     well as the National and State Advisory Councils, necessary rules
     and regulations u/s.38 of the Act for implementing the mandate
     of s.12(1)(c) of the Act – NCPCR, New Delhi to be impleaded
     as a party respondent – The copy of the order be sent to the
     Commission for compliance and monitoring – Commission to
     collate information about the issuance of rules and regulations by
     the appropriate Governments of the States and Union Territories
     and file an affidavit before this Court by 31st of March, 2026 –
     Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – ss.3, 17.
     [Paras 1, 6.3]

     Constitution of India – Article 21A – Right to Education –
     Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
     2009 – s.12 – Extent of school’s responsibility for free and
     compulsory education – ‘neighbourhood school’ denied
     admission to petitioner’s children for free and compulsory
     elementary education in 2016 – Petitioner filing writ petition,
     High Court turned back the petitioner on the ground that he
170                                                                [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       had failed to take up appropriate steps to admit his kids in the
       free education quota – SLP thereagainst pending in Supreme
       Court for a long time:
       Held: Unfortunately, the matter has become infructuous – However,
       in order to ensure that this situation shall not revisit parents like the
       petitioner again and again, case taken up for precedent making
       and to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures
       for complying with the mandate of s.12 – Amicus curiae appointed.
       [Para 3]

       Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
       2009 – ss.12, 6, 9, 2(h), 10 – Extent of school’s responsibility
       for free and compulsory education – Duty of appropriate
       Government and local authority to establish school – Duties
       of local authority – Fundamental duties – Duty of parents and
       guardian – Constitution of India – Arts.21A, 51A(k) – Right to
       Education:
       Held: Constitution declares elementary education as a fundamental
       right, as against many other liberties, which are in the nature of
       fundamental freedoms – 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 – Obligations and duties of the duty
       bearers, highlighted. [Paras 6-6.5]

       Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
       2009 – s.12 – Extent of school’s responsibility for free and
       compulsory education – Constitutional philosophy & mandate
       of s.12 – Two foundational constitutional values:
       Held: 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 – 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
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                              171

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


     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 – In sustaining s.12, the
     Supreme Court has recognised that the rights of children carry
     corresponding obligations on the State to “respect, protect and
     fulfill” those rights and to regulate private educational institutions
     so that children’s rights are not violated even in non-State spheres.
     [Para 7]

     Constitution of India – Article 21A – Right to Education – Right
     of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 –
     Scheme of the Act:
     Held: Statutory design is normatively ambitious – It envisages
     elementary education for all children, across the spectrum of class,
     caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional
     space – s.12 seeks to concretises the constitutional principle
     of fraternity alongside equality and liberty – The 25% inclusion
     u/s.12, in unaided neighbourhood schools, is not an isolated
     welfare measure but a vehicle through which the constitutional
     commitment to fraternity and the “development of the child” as
     recognised in Article 21A and Article 39(f) is sought to be realized.
     [Para 8]

     Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
     2009 – s.12 – Extent of school’s responsibility for free
     and compulsory education – “neighbourhood schools” –
     Emphasis on “neighbourhood schools” is rooted in the
     National System of Education, as elaborated in the Kothari
     Commission Report, which recommended a Common
     School System whereby all children, irrespective of social or
     economic background, would attend the same neighbourhood
     schools and learn together in an integrated, non-segregated
     environment:
     Held: This model envisages the school as a common civic space
     that breaks down barriers of caste, class and gender, and thereby
     advances substantive equality and social justice – Policy rationale
     underlying s.12, stated. [Para 9]
172                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Constitution of India – Article 21A – Right to Education – Right
       of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 –
       s.12 – Role of judiciary:
       Held: Ensuring admission of at least twenty-five percent of
       class strength in unaided schools with children of weaker and
       disadvantaged groups is certainly a national mission – Effective
       implementation of the statutory policy will be transformative and,
       in this regard, each one, 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 and its teachers – 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.
       [Para 10]

                                  List of Acts
       Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;
       Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005; Constitution
       of India.

                               List of Keywords
       Right under Article 21A, Constitution of India; Right to Education;
       Section 12, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
       2009; Free and compulsory elementary education; “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; National and State Commissions for Protection of
       Child Rights; “neighbourhood schools”; Appropriate Government;
       Local authority to establish school; National System of Education;
       Kothari Commission Report.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
       No. 10105 of 2017
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2016 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 6415 of 2016
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            173

             Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Varinder Kumar Sharma.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Omkar Deshpande, Siddharth
       Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma,
       Bhuvan Kapoor, Mili Baxi, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Padmesh
       Mishra, Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Sudarshan Lamba, Amit Gupta,
       Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Prannv Dhawan, M/s Mitter & Mitter Co.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                           Judgment

1.     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
       Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20091 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. We have held that
       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.
2.     We need not refer to the detailed facts of the case as by the time
       our attention was drawn to this special leave petition, the time within
       which effective relief could be granted to the petitioner had long
       passed. The petitioner had approached a ‘neighbourhood school’ for
       admitting his children for free and compulsory elementary education



1    Hereinafter referred to as the Act.
174                                                          [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       way back in 2016. It is his case that, even though information through
       RTI indicated that seats were available, the neighbourhood school
       did not respond. Therefore, he was compelled to approach the High
       Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
       However, by the order impugned before us, the High Court turned
       back the petitioner on the ground that, “the petitioner had failed to
       take up appropriate steps to admit his kids in the free education
       quota, the petitioner must blame himself.” The “appropriate steps”
       that the High Court was referring to pertained to the alleged failure
       to apply as per the online procedure for filling up the twenty-five
       percent seats for children of weaker and disadvantaged sections.
       This is despite the fact that the primary education officer of the Zila
       Parishad, Gondia had addressed a letter to the Deputy Education
       Officer to admit petitioner’s children, though online procedure had not
       been followed, as his house is within 3 kms of the neighbourhood
       school and also that he comes from a very poor family. Further, the
       petitioner had also placed before the authorities RTI information that
       648 seats are still lying vacant.
3.     Unfortunately, the Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s
       order has been pending in this Court for a long time without
       appropriate orders and many years have passed by. The standard
       submission that we hear at the Bar, when such unfortunate cases
       are called for hearing is that– “the matter has become infructuous”.
       Sadly, this is true for the purpose of decision making on the facts
       of this case. However, in order to ensure that this situation shall not
       revisit parents like the petitioner again and again, we considered it
       appropriate to take up the case for precedent making and decided
       to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures for
       complying with the mandate of Section 12. We, therefore, appointed
       Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned senior counsel, as the amicus
       curiae to assist the Court.
4.     The learned amicus curiae has brought to our notice the inaccessibility
       of twenty-five percent of class strength in a neighbourhood school
       to children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged groups under
       Section 12 for multifarious reasons. He would submit that the online
       application process to access the Right under Section 12 ignores
       the prevalent digital illiteracy. Apart from that, he also highlighted
       the language barrier and lack of help-desks to assist the parents/
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            175

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


     guardians. In addition to this, lack of information about the availability
     of seats, absence of transparency in the admission process and
     uncertainty about the forums for redressal of grievances are some
     of the issues highlighted by the learned amicus curiae. Before we
     deal with the text of Section 12, which we will in due course, it is
     also necessary to examine the context in which it is located in the
     scheme of the Act and the constitutional mandate.

     A True Understanding of the Fundamental Right to Education.
5.   Article 21A declares the fundamental right to free and compulsory
     education of all children of the age of 6 to 14 years.
           “Article 21A. Right to Education – The State shall provide
           free and compulsory education to all children of the age
           of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may,
           by law, determine.”
     The obligation that the, “State shall provide free and compulsory
     education in such manner as maybe determined by law”, translates
     into the 2009 legislation, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
     Education Act.
           “Section 3. Right of child to free and compulsory
           education –
           (1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including
           a child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2,
           shall have the right to free and compulsory education in
           a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her
           elementary education.”
6.   It is important to recognize that the Constitution declares elementary
     education as a fundamental right, as against many other liberties,
     which are in the nature of fundamental freedoms. 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.
176                                                                                [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


       6.1 The first duty bearer; is the “appropriate Government”. The
           duty of the appropriate Government to establish neighbourhood
           schools is prescribed in Section 6.
                     “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.”
             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”.
       6.2 The second duty bearer; is the “local authority”2. 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)). The relevant
           part of Section 9 is as follows -
                     “Section 9. Duties of local authority.- Every local
                     authority shall—
                     (b) ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as
                     specified in section 6;
                     (d) maintain records of children up to the age of
                     fourteen years residing within its jurisdiction, in such
                     manner as may be prescribed;



2   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;
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                              177

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


                (e) ensure and monitor admission, attendance and
                completion of elementary education by every child
                residing within its jurisdiction.”
     6.3 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 articulates the responsibility of a neighbourhood
         school in the following terms -
                “Section 12. Extent of school’s responsibility for
                free and compulsory education.-
                (1) For the purposes of this Act, a school,—
                     (a) specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of
                     section 2 shall provide free and compulsory
                     elementary education to all children admitted
                     therein;
                     (b) specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of
                     section 2 shall provide free and compulsory
                     elementary education to such proportion of
                     children admitted therein as its annual recurring
                     aid or grants so received bears to its annual
                     recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of
                     twenty-five per cent.;
                     (c) specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause
                     (n) of section 2 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 in the neighbourhood
                     and provide free and compulsory elementary
                     education till its completion:
                     Provided further that where a school specified
                     in clause (n) of section 2 imparts pre-school
                     education, the provisions of clauses (a) to (c)
                     shall apply for admission to such pre-school
                     education.
                (2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n)
                of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary
178                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                 education as specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
                 shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the
                 extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or
                 the actual amount charged from the child, whichever
                 is less, in such manner as may be prescribed:
                       Provided that such reimbursement shall not
                       exceed per-child-expenditure incurred by a
                       school specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n)
                       of section 2:
                       Provided further that where such school
                       is already under obligation to provide free
                       education to a specified number of children on
                       account of it having received any land, building,
                       equipment or other facilities, either free of cost
                       or at a concessional rate, such school shall not
                       be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of
                       such obligation.
                 (3) Every school shall provide such information as
                 may be required by the appropriate Government or
                 the local authority, as the case may be.”
            The definition of ‘School’ takes within its fold any recognised
            school imparting education and includes (i) governmental school,
            (ii) aided school receiving grants, (iii) schools belonging to
            specified categories such as the Kendriya Vidyalaya etc. and
            most importantly, (iv) unaided school not receiving any grants.
            With respect to the specified and unaided schools not receiving
            any grants, Section 12 mandates that the “neighborhood 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.
       6.4 The fourth duty bearer; is the Parent. This duty is now
           constitutionally recognised in Article 51A(k) of the Constitution.
            “51A. Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty of every
            citizen of India-
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                          179

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


           (k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities
           for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward
           between the age of six and fourteen years”.
           Following the constitutional mandate, Section 10 of the Act
           mandates every parent to perform this pious duty.
           “10. Duty of parents and guardian - It shall be the
           duty of every parent or guardian to admit or cause to be
           admitted his or her child or ward, as the case may be, to
           an elementary education in the neighbourhood school.”
     6.5 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 and as
         such, they have to be treated with utmost respect and care. A
         society that does not take care of its elementary school teachers
         is bound to fail in securing the constitutional objective.

     The Constitutional Philosophy & Mandate of Section 12.
7.   It is necessary to underscore two foundational constitutional values
     that Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
     Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) 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.
     In sustaining Section 12, the Supreme Court has recognised that
     the rights of children carry corresponding obligations on the State
     to “respect, protect and fulfill” those rights and to regulate private
     educational institutions so that children’s rights are not violated even
     in non-State spheres.
180                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


8.     Properly understood, this statutory design is normatively ambitious. It
       envisages elementary education for all children, across the spectrum
       of class, caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional
       space. It makes it possible, normatively and structurally, for the child
       of a multi-millionaire or even of a Judge of the Supreme Court of
       India to sit in the same classroom and at the same bench as the
       child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor. This is the manner
       in which Section 12 seeks to concretise the constitutional principle
       of fraternity alongside equality and liberty. A correct appreciation
       of fraternity must displace the traditional but mistaken view, often
       repeated in constitutional discourse, that it is not an enforceable
       value. Our constitutional jurisprudence compels us to read fraternity
       as a value requiring the State to structure institutions that nurture
       co-existence, mutual respect, and a sense of common membership.
       Unlike equality and liberty, which are frequently framed as individual
       rights-claims, fraternity is relational; it operates through institutional
       arrangements that enable individuals to “lose suspect identities”
       based on caste, class or other hierarchies and to form solidaristic
       bonds. In this sense, the 25% inclusion under Section 12, in unaided
       neighbourhood schools, is not an isolated welfare measure but a
       vehicle through which the constitutional commitment to fraternity
       and the “development of the child” as recognised in Article 21A and
       Article 39(f) is sought to be realised.
9.     The emphasis on “neighbourhood schools” is rooted in the National
       System of Education, as elaborated in the Kothari Commission
       Report, which recommended a Common School System whereby all
       children, irrespective of social or economic background, would attend
       the same neighbourhood schools and learn together in an integrated,
       non-segregated environment. This model envisages the school as
       a common civic space that breaks down barriers of caste, class
       and gender, and thereby advances substantive equality and social
       justice. The neighbourhood common school system under the RTE
       Act envisages that each child must have access to a neighbourhood
       school and such a system is central to the project of democratising
       schooling and reducing entrenched social inequalities. The policy
       rationale underlying Section 12 of the RTE Act is evident from the
       following statement of the Ministry of Human Resource Development;
            “The idea that schooling should act as a means of social
            cohesion and inclusion is not new; it has been oft repeated.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            181

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


           Inequitable and disparate schooling reinforces existing
           social and economic hierarchies, and promotes in the
           educated sections of society an indifference towards the
           plight of the poor.
           The currently used term ‘inclusive’ education implies, as did
           earlier terms like ‘common’ and ‘neighbourhood’ schools,
           that children from different backgrounds and with varying
           interests and ability will achieve their highest potential if
           they study in a shared classroom environment. The idea
           of inclusive schooling is also consistent with Constitutional
           values and ideals, especially with the ideals of fraternity,
           social justice and equality of opportunity.
           For children of socio-economically weaker backgrounds to
           feel at home in private schools, it is necessary that they
           form a substantial proportion or critical mass in the class
           they join. The relevant universe in which the proportion
           needs to be considered is the class/section. It is for this
           reason that the RTE Act provides for admission of 25%
           children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections
           in class I only. This implies that these children cannot be
           pooled together in a separate section or afternoon shift.
           Any arrangement which segregates, or treats these children
           in a differentiated manner vis-à-vis the fee-paying children
           will be counter-productive.
           The rationale for 25% lies in the fact that the composition of
           caste/class indicated in the Census is fairly representative
           of the composition of children who are seeking admission
           under this provision. As per Census 2001, SCs constitute
           16.2%, and STs constitute 8.2% (total 24.4%) of the
           population. Further, the Tendulkar Committee, set up
           by the Planning Commission to measure poverty, has
           estimated the below poverty line (BPL) population to be
           37.2%. It is a fact that much of the population that suffers
           economic deprivation also suffers from social disadvantage.
           Thus, taken together, the figure of 25% for admission of
           children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections
           is considered reasonable. Any lower proportion would
           jeopardize the long-term goal of the policy which is to
182                                                       [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       strengthen social cohesion and bring out the best human
       resource potential inherent in our society as a whole. A
       smaller proportion would serve only a token purpose, and it
       will run the serious risk of creating the feeling of alienation
       among the children belonging to disadvantaged groups and
       weaker sections. Their participation in classroom interaction
       will be neither strong nor sufficiently manifest to enrich
       the overall experiential learning taking place in any given
       subject area. Only a critical mass can play such a role.
       The RTE Act provides for admission of 25% children from
       disadvantaged groups and weaker sections in Class I,
       not across the whole school. As children admitted to
       class I move to class II, new children will be admitted to
       class I, and so on till completion of 8 years of elementary
       education. The rationale for admission in class I only must
       be appreciated in human terms. Teachers who are used to
       a selective, homogeneous classroom environment cannot
       be expected to develop the required positive attitude and
       professional skills to deal with a diversified class overnight.
       The same applies to children. Children who have grown up
       to an age of nine or ten in a homogeneous or segregated
       environment have been socialized into a structure of norms
       and behaviour. They cannot be transformed on demand.
       Also, the overall school ethos cannot be expected to
       respond to a new policy in a positive manner all of a sudden.
       Education is indeed an act of faith and social engineering -
       but not quick-fix social engineering. In view of the fact that
       children take time to socialize and teachers take time to
       develop new attitudes and pedagogic skills, the RTE Act
       provides for admission of disadvantaged and poor children
       at the entry level, covering pre-school and Class I. With
       these children moving up, and a new cohort of children
       entering pre-school and Class I in each successive year,
       the school will gradually have a more diverse population
       spread across all classes. Progression at this pace will allow
       children the opportunity to grow up together and create
       bonds: bonds that can survive social walls. Progression at
       this pace can allow the school to develop the professional
       capacity to respond to the intellectual and emotional needs
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           183

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


           of children from diverse backgrounds. Children who are
           younger than eight years of age are yet to develop a
           stable social identity. Their values are still forming, and
           their motivation to derive meaning from experience, both
           concrete and social is very strong. Therefore, it is a valid
           argument that the policy of mixing children from different
           socio-economic strata has the best chance of succeeding
           if it starts from the formative years of nursery/kindergarten
           and Class I. Diversity enhances learning and development,
           while segregation impoverishes the classroom environment
           of all schools, private or government.
           Admission of 25% children from disadvantaged groups
           and weaker sections in the neighbourhood is not merely
           to provide avenues of quality education to poor and
           disadvantaged children. The larger objective is to provide
           a common place where children sit, eat and live together
           for at least eight years of their lives across caste, class
           and gender divides in order that it narrows down such
           divisions in our society. The other objective is that the 75%
           children who have been lucky to come from better endowed
           families, learn through their interaction with the children
           from families who haven’t had similar opportunities, but are
           rich in knowledge systems allied to trade, craft, farming
           and other services, and that the pedagogic enrichment of
           the 75% children is provided by such intermingling. This
           will of course require classroom practices, teacher training,
           etc. to constantly bring out these pedagogic practices,
           rather than merely make children from these two sections
           sit together. The often voiced concern about how the 25%
           children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections
           can cope in an environment where rich children exist
           can be resolved when the teaching learning process and
           teachers use these children as sources of knowledge so
           that their esteem and recognition goes up and they begin
           to be treated as equals.”
10. Our concern is about the effective, rather, the ineffective implementation
    of the mandate under Section 12 of the Act. 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
184                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


       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 and its
       teachers. 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. It
       is in this context that we have examined the procedure and practice
       for implementing Section 12 of the Act.
11. Considering the importance of implementing the purpose and object
    of the Act, Parliament has assigned the task of reviewing, monitoring
    and redressing the grievances arising under the Act to the National
    and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights3 under Section
    31 of the Act.
             “Section 31. Monitoring of child’s right to education.—
             (1) The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
             constituted under section 3, or, as the case may be, the
             State Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted
             under section 17, of the Commissions for Protection of
             Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), shall, in addition to the
             functions assigned to them under that Act, also perform
             the following functions, namely:—
             (a) examine and review the safeguards for rights provided
             by or under this Act and recommend measures for their
             effective implementation;
             (b) inquire into complaints relating to child’s right to free
             and compulsory education; and
             (c) take necessary steps as provided under sections 15
             and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child
             Rights Act.
             (2) The said Commissions shall, while inquiring into any
             matters relating to child’s right to free and compulsory



3   Hereinafter referred to as “the NCPCR” and “the SCPCRs”.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           185

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


           education under clause (c) of sub-section (1), have the
           same powers as assigned to them respectively under
           sections 14 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection
           of Child Rights Act.
           (3) Where the State Commission for Protection of Child
           Rights has not been constituted in a State, the appropriate
           Government may, for the purpose of performing the
           functions specified in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1),
           constitute such authority, in such manner and subject to
           such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed.”
12. The Commissions are established under Sections 3 and 17 of the
    Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. In exercise of its
    statutory duty, NCPCR issued Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
    for implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The preamble of
    the SOP is as follows:
           “Through the redressal of grievances and feedback during
           different formal and informal meetings/consultations, it
           came to NCPCR’s notice that different mechanism and
           modalities are being followed by the States/UTs based on
           their interpretation of the said provision. To examine the
           compliance of the above-mentioned clause in true spirit and
           to understand ground reality NCPCR undertook a study on
           implementation of the provision in private unaided schools
           of Delhi. The findings of the study revealed challenges
           faced by all stakeholders involved specially the children
           and parents. Most importantly, it helped to discover the
           issues right from the process of admission to the inclusion
           of children admitted under this section in the school.
           Consequently, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
           for Implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009
           has been developed to present a systematic mechanism/
           procedure to be followed by the State Governments in
           making the entire process streamlined and transparent.”
13. Learned amicus curiae also brought to our notice SOP for Delhi and
    the relevant rules for the State of Maharashtra. He has also placed
    on record certain other material having a direct bearing on the issue
    under consideration. A statement of joint suggestions made by the
    amicus curiae and the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) is
186                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       also placed before us, highlighting the concerns and identifying areas
       requiring improvement. The issues and suggestions are as follows:
       (i)    Implementation of Section 12 by the States/UTs and providing
              online portal for admission: Presently, all States and Union
              Territories have neither implemented the mandate of Section
              12, nor established a portal dedicated to ensuring a transparent
              admission process.
       (ii)   Language: It is suggested that all States and Union Territories
              should provide information in at least three languages – two
              being the official languages (Hindi and English) and the third
              being the local language of the area concerned.
       (iii) Information and assistance: Information regarding the admission
             process has to be made available to parents and guardians.
       (iv) Transparency: Schools should be directed to publish the number
            of available seats for children belonging to disadvantages
            groups and weaker sections much in advance and before the
            application stage commences.
       (v)    Establishment of help-desks and pro-active assistance during
              the application stage: Either the designated school staff, the
              District Education Officer, the Block Officer, the Block Committee
              Office or the Jan Sewa Kendras must set up help-desks to
              assist parents for completing the application process.
       (vi) Window for clearance of defects: Instead of simpliciter rejection
            of a defective application, a defect clearance window should
            be established with an assistant to clear mistakes.
       (vii) Complaints: A redressal mechanism for complaints by parents/
             guardians should be set up and the grievances must be resolved
             within strict timelines.
       (viii) Transparency in denial of admissions: Denial of admissions
              should be recorded and uploaded with reasons and the same
              should be reviewed by the Block Education Officer within 72
              hours.
       (ix) Training: Training must be imparted to prevent discrimination
            of children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker
            sections.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         187

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


14. The suggestions of the learned amicus curiae and the learned ASG,
    seen in the context of SOP issued by NCPCR may be restated. In
    fact, NCPCR’s SOP is structured in three stages, (i) the first relates
    to the preparatory stage, (ii) the second stage relates to processing
    applications, selection and admission and (iii) the third stage relates
    to procedure after completion of admission. To ensure a smooth
    and transparent admission process and in order to enable eligible
    children to access the right of admission under Section 12(1)(c), the
    following steps should be taken –

     14.1 Preparatory Stage
            (i)     Finalization of seats: The schools should be given 20
                    working days to submit the requisite data of the declared
                    strength for purpose of Section 12(1)(c).
            (ii)    Advertisement: Appropriate Government and local
                    authority should advertise the schedule of admission
                    under Section 12(1)(c) in print and electronic media as
                    well as locally used medium of broadcasting/publicising
                    important announcements, especially in rural areas. This
                    shall contain all the essential information regarding the
                    admission process.
            (iii)   Schedule of admission: A calendar for admission
                    under Section 12(1)(c) shall be scheduled in such a
                    manner that the admission process is completed before
                    beginning of admission of children under DG/EWS
                    category. This is to be done at least two months from
                    the commencement of the next academic year.
            (iv)    Centralized online system: The appropriate Government
                    shall develop centralized online portal for admission
                    under Section 12(1)(c). The joint suggestions recognize
                    the existence of digital illiteracy and have suggested
                    that the process must be accessible with the aid of
                    help-desks etc., to bridge the gap of digital divide.
            (v)     Criteria: for determining children belonging to
                    disadvantaged groups and weaker sections must have
                    clarity and simplicity.
188                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            (vi)     Documents: The requirement of documents necessary
                     for processing the application for admission must be
                     clearly mentioned.
            (vii)    Information about the school: It is necessary to ensure
                     that the school is fully prepared and ready to undertake
                     the process of admission effectively and efficiently. Public
                     awareness in the local area about the admission process
                     is necessary. The school as well as local authority have
                     an obligation to disseminate this information.
            (viii)   Dispute settlement: Dispute Settlements Committees
                     must be set up and their availability must be made
                     known.

       14.2 Processing Applications, Selection and Admission
            (i)      Help-desks: The local authority, respective neighbourhood
                     schools and non-governmental organisations shall set
                     up help-desks for free of cost facilitation of parents/
                     guardian in filling the form on the online portal and other
                     connected steps. For this purpose, assistance under
                     the Common Service Centres Scheme shall also be
                     made readily available.
            (ii)     Selection criteria: The criteria employed for giving
                     preference to one applicant over the another and the
                     process of draw of lots shall be laid out in simple and
                     clear terms, and it must be widely published.
            (iii)    Scrutiny of applications: Scrutiny of applications shall
                     be carried out by zonal/local teams, as directed to be
                     constituted as per SOP notified by the GNCTD of Delhi
                     dated 02.01.2025, instead of private unaided recognized
                     schools.
            (iv)     Window for correction of defects: No application shall
                     be summarily rejected on the ground of deficiency of
                     required documents without first giving an opportunity
                     for correction. For this purpose, a set timeline and
                     procedure for providing window of correction shall be
                     prescribed, taking specific guidance from the NCPCR’s
                     SOP in this regard.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         189

         Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.


            (v)     Dispute resolution: Easy and effective mechanism for
                    dispute resolution under Section 32 or by the Dispute
                    Settlement Committee must be formulated.

     14.3 After Completion of Admission Process
            (i)     Speaking order: The outcome of selection must be
                    published through a speaking order.
            (ii)    Admission process: The online portal shall notify school-
                    wise list of children selected. An updated record of the
                    children taking admission must be maintained.
            (iii)   Initiation of inquiry: The authorities must monitor and
                    keep a constant watch. In case there is a trend noticed
                    with respect to reserved seats going vacant in a specific
                    school, the causes must be enquired into.
            (iv)    Post-admission: The basic essentials for effective
                    inclusion post admission must be undertaken.
            (v)     Reimbursement: Per-Child Expenditure reimbursement
                    must be done without delay.
            (vi)    Finality of selection: The admitted children shall not
                    be subjected to any further scrutiny by the respective
                    schools.
15. The above referred procedure, as indicated in the SOP issued by
    NCPCR, is only in the nature of guidelines. These guidelines do
    not partake the character of enforceable rules, violation of which
    would render the duty bearers answerable to the reviewing or
    controlling authority. Uncertainty about the obligation to comply with
    the requirements would also make judicial review complicated. We
    are of the opinion that it is necessary and compelling to formulate
    subordinate legislation by issuing necessary rules and regulations,
    prescribing the method and manner by which children of weaker
    and disadvantaged sections are to be admitted in neighbourhood
    schools. Without such enforceable rules and regulations, the object
    of Article 21A and the statutory policy under Section 12(1)(c) would
    be a dead letter.
16. In view of the above, we direct the appropriate authorities to prepare
    and issue, in consultation with the NCPCR and SCPCRs, as the
190                                                        [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       case may be, as well as the National and State Advisory Councils,
       necessary rules and regulations under Section 38 of the Act for
       implementing the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
       16.1 We direct that the NCPCR, New Delhi shall be impleaded as
            a party respondent. The copy of our order shall be sent to the
            Commission for compliance and monitoring.
       16.2 We further direct the Commission to collate information about
            the issuance of rules and regulations by the appropriate
            Governments of the States and Union Territories and file an
            affidavit before this Court by 31st of March, 2026.
       16.3 List this Special Leave Petition for further hearing on 6th of
            April, 2026.

       Result of the case: Special Leave Petition to be listed for further
                            hearing.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey