RTE law fails India’s poor

In a significant order, the Supreme Court has directed state governments to implement measures aimed at fulfilling a key provision of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which seeks to ensure equity for economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. There is little doubt that the RTE, created through a landmark constitutional amendment, has largely remained on paper for children from underprivileged backgrounds despite the passage of time.

Section 12 of the law clearly mandates that schools admit students from underprivileged backgrounds to 25% of seats in Class I and ensure that they receive free elementary education throughout. What made the law stand out was its applicability to private schools, in addition to government and aided institutions, and its emphasis on neighbourhood-based access. In practice, however, there are significant shortcomings in the implementation of the RTE Act.

A study conducted in Delhi by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the empowered agency, showed some years ago that at best only 18% of seats were filled and that universal compliance was absent. Little has changed since. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar took note of this lamentable state of affairs, which continues despite the establishment of statutory child rights commissions.

The court reiterated the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the admissions process is accessible, effective, and efficient, especially against the backdrop of steep digital asymmetry in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas. Many children have been unable to benefit from their right to education due to these barriers. The bench was hearing a long-pending petition against a Bombay High Court judgment that had denied relief to a parent solely because he had failed to apply online.

The Supreme Court’s detailed order should spur all stakeholders to breathe new life into the RTE’s provisions on equity and fraternity, with the NCPCR taking the lead. State governments and Union Territories must issue suitable rules under Section 38 of the law in consultation with the NCPCR, state commissions, and advisory councils. The court considered suggestions made by amici curiae, including the opening of online portals by states to assist parents in line with Section 12 of the RTE mandate; requiring schools to publish seat strength and reservations for EWS and disadvantaged groups; setting up help desks by states, schools, or citizen service centres to assist parents in submitting applications without charge; and establishing a grievance redressal mechanism.

These and other initiatives must be widely communicated to communities through media advertisements and local awareness campaigns. Dispute settlement committees should be made accessible to all. These are much-needed reforms, and state governments must adopt them without delay.