Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Minority Exemption from RTE Act, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

December 12, 2025

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has strongly reaffirmed the finality and binding nature of Constitution Bench judgments, rejecting a writ petition that sought to reopen the settled issue of minority educational institutions’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). In a stern order, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner NGO, calling the petition a “gross abuse” of judicial process and a threat to the institutional integrity of the judiciary.

Background of the Petition

Petitioner and Relief Sought

The petition was filed by an NGO, United Voice for Education Forum, invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking:

A declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act is unconstitutional
Inclusion of minority schools—aided and unaided—within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, which mandates 25% reservation at entry level for children from economically weaker sections
Constitution of an expert committee to evolve a framework balancing:
- Minority rights under Article 30
- The right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A

Supreme Court’s Strong Rejection of the Plea

Bench Composition

The matter was heard by a bench comprising:

Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Justice R. Mahadevan

Court’s Observations

The bench categorically held that:

The petition was misconceived
It sought to reopen a settled constitutional issue
It amounted to an attack on the hierarchical discipline of the judiciary

Justice Nagarathna remarked that invoking Article 32 to challenge a binding Supreme Court judgment undermines the entire judicial system.

The bench observed that it was “restraining itself” by limiting the penalty to ₹1 lakh, warning litigants against attempting to “bring down the judiciary” by such procedural misuse.

Imposition of Costs: A Message to Litigants

₹1 Lakh Penalty

The Supreme Court imposed ₹1 lakh as costs on the petitioner NGO, clarifying that:

The penalty was intended as a deterrent
It served as a “message to others”
Article 32 cannot be used to collaterally attack Supreme Court precedents

While the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, it made it clear that such petitions verge dangerously close to contempt of court.

Concern Over Role of Lawyers

Message to the Bar

The Court expressed serious concern over the legal advice behind the petition, questioning how advocates could encourage challenges to binding Constitution Bench judgments.

The bench emphasized that:

Lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to respect precedent
Encouraging such petitions constitutes a “grossest abuse” of constitutional remedies

This observation underscores the Court’s expectation of professional responsibility and ethical restraint from the legal fraternity.

The Settled Law: Pramati Educational Case (2014)

Constitution Bench Judgment

The issue sought to be reopened was conclusively settled in:

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)

In this landmark judgment, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that:

Minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, are exempt from the RTE Act
Forcing RTE obligations on minority institutions would violate Article 30(1)

This judgment has remained binding law for over a decade.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 30(1) – Minority Rights

Guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
Forms the constitutional basis for exemption from regulatory frameworks that interfere with institutional autonomy

Article 21A – Right to Education

Guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14 years
Introduced through the 86th Constitutional Amendment

The Court has repeatedly held that Article 21A and Article 30 must co-exist, not annihilate each other.

Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies

Provides a direct remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights
Cannot be misused to challenge the Supreme Court’s own final judgments

Statutory Provisions Involved

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Section 12(1)(c) mandates 25% reservation in private unaided schools
Minority institutions are explicitly exempt, as upheld in Pramati

Recent Judicial Developments and Context

Reference by Justice Datta and Justice Manmohan

Three months prior, a bench of:

Justice Dipankar Datta
Justice Manmohan

had expressed concerns that the Pramati ruling may have weakened the vision of universal elementary education under Article 21A.

Key observations included:

Excluding minority institutions could lead to fragmentation of common schooling
Risk of reinforcing social divisions
Potential misuse of minority status to bypass RTE obligations

However, the bench clearly stated that:

They remained bound by Pramati
Any reconsideration must come only through a larger bench reference

Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) Issue

The reference arose during adjudication of conflicting High Court rulings on TET applicability:

TET mandatory for non-minority institutions
Minority institutions governed by Pramati, pending decision of larger bench

This reinforces that lower benches cannot override Constitution Bench rulings.

Procedural Impropriety Highlighted by the Court

Core Reason for Dismissal

Justice Nagarathna’s bench made it clear that the petition failed not on merits, but due to:

Improper procedural route
Attempt to unsettle constitutional precedent via Article 32
Violation of judicial discipline and hierarchy

Judicial Precedents on Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments

Article 141 – Law Declared Binding

The Supreme Court has consistently held that:

Law declared under Article 141 is binding on all courts
Even coordinate benches are bound by Constitution Bench rulings

Key cases include:

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989)

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order serves as a firm reminder that constitutional remedies cannot be weaponised to destabilise settled law. While debates on harmonising minority rights and universal education remain alive through proper judicial references, procedural discipline is non-negotiable.

By imposing costs and issuing stern warnings, the Court has reinforced:

Respect for precedent
Protection of judicial hierarchy
Responsible use of Article 32

The ruling stands as a cautionary precedent against frivolous constitutional litigation and an affirmation of institutional judicial integrity.