RTE Act Seeks to Foster Fraternity by Bringing Children from Diverse Backgrounds Together
Supreme Court explains how the RTE Act’s 25% quota fosters fraternity by integrating children from diverse backgrounds in neighbourhood schools.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) represents one of the most ambitious social legislations in post-constitutional India. It operationalises Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen. Beyond its immediate goal of universal elementary education, the RTE Act seeks to transform the social fabric of India by promoting equality, dignity, and fraternity.
The Supreme Court judgment in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026), is a landmark exposition of this deeper constitutional vision, particularly the role of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act in fostering fraternity by bringing children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds into shared educational spaces.
This case is significant not merely for the relief sought by the petitioner, but for the Court’s expansive interpretation of the RTE Act as a tool of constitutional social engineering. The judgment underscores that education is not only a means of individual advancement but also a collective instrument for building an inclusive and cohesive society.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar, belonged to a poor family and sought admission for his children under the 25% quota mandated by Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act in a neighbourhood private unaided school. Despite being eligible and despite the availability of vacant seats, as revealed through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the school failed to admit his children.
The petitioner approached the authorities, and even the Primary Education Officer of the Zila Parishad recommended admission on humanitarian grounds, noting the petitioner’s poverty and proximity to the school. However, the school authorities insisted on strict compliance with the online admission procedure. When the petitioner approached the High Court, his writ petition was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to follow the prescribed online process.
By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, several years had passed, rendering effective relief to the petitioner’s children impossible. Ordinarily, the Court might have treated the matter as infructuous. However, recognising the systemic nature of the issues raised, the Court decided to treat the case as a precedent-setting opportunity to examine the broader implementation of Section 12 of the RTE Act and its constitutional purpose.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Article 21A and the RTE Act
Article 21A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children between six and fourteen years “in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” This constitutional command was translated into statutory form through the RTE Act, 2009.
Section 3 of the Act guarantees every child the right to free and compulsory elementary education in a neighbourhood school. The Act thus conceptualises education as a positive fundamental right, imposing corresponding duties on multiple stakeholders.
Five Duty Bearers
The Court identified five duty bearers responsible for realising the right to education:
- The Appropriate Government: Responsible for establishing neighbourhood schools and ensuring financial support.
- Local Authorities: Responsible for maintaining records, monitoring admissions, and ensuring attendance.
- Neighbourhood Schools: Entrusted with the duty of providing free and compulsory education.
- Parents or Guardians: Constitutionally obligated under Article 51A(k) provide opportunities for education to their children.
- Teachers: Recognised as central actors in nation-building and child development.
This multi-layered framework emphasises that the right to education is not a passive entitlement but a shared constitutional responsibility.
Section 12(1)(c): The Core Provision
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that private unaided schools must admit, at the entry-level class, at least 25% of students from “weaker sections” and “disadvantaged groups” in the neighbourhood and provide them free education until completion of elementary schooling.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that this obligation is not merely regulatory or charitable in nature. Instead, it is a constitutional strategy to ensure substantive equality and social integration. The provision ensures that children from marginalised backgrounds are not relegated to separate or inferior institutions but are integrated into mainstream educational spaces.
Fraternity as a Constitutional Value
One of the most striking aspects of the judgment is its emphasis on fraternity, a value often overshadowed by liberty and equality in constitutional discourse. The Court observed that fraternity is not a vague moral ideal but a constitutional principle requiring institutional realisation.
By mandating that children from different socio-economic backgrounds study together in neighbourhood schools, Section 12(1)(c) seeks to dismantle entrenched social hierarchies. The Court vividly illustrated this idea by noting that the child of a Supreme Court judge and the child of an autorickshaw driver could sit on the same bench, learn together, and grow up as equals.
Fraternity, the Court explained, is relational rather than individualistic. It flourishes through shared experiences and common institutions. Education, especially at the formative elementary level, is uniquely suited to nurture such bonds. Through daily interaction, children “lose suspect identities” based on caste, class, or economic status and develop a sense of common citizenship.
Neighbourhood Schools and the Common School System
The emphasis on neighbourhood schools is rooted in the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, which advocated a Common School System. Such a system envisages schools as common civic spaces where children from diverse backgrounds learn together, thereby promoting social cohesion.
The Court highlighted that segregated schooling systems reinforce inequality and indifference among privileged groups. In contrast, inclusive neighbourhood schools democratise education and serve as laboratories of social justice. The RTE Act’s insistence on neighbourhood schools reflects a conscious policy choice to prevent the creation of parallel educational systems based on class or wealth.
Rationale for the 25% Quota
The Court extensively discussed the rationale behind fixing the quota at 25%. Census data indicate that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together constitute approximately 24% of the population, while a significant proportion of the population lives below the poverty line. The 25% figure thus reflects a realistic attempt to create a critical mass of children from disadvantaged backgrounds within classrooms.
The presence of a critical mass is essential to prevent tokenism and alienation. If the number of such students were too small, they might feel isolated and unable to participate meaningfully in classroom interactions. A substantial proportion ensures that diversity becomes a normalised feature of the classroom environment.
Formative Years and Socialisation
The RTE Act limits the 25% reservation to entry-level classes such as pre-school and Class I. The Court endorsed this approach, emphasising that younger children are more receptive to diversity and less burdened by rigid social identities. Early integration allows children to grow up together, forming bonds that transcend social divisions.
Teachers, too, require time to adapt pedagogically to diverse classrooms. Gradual integration ensures that schools develop the professional capacity to respond sensitively to the needs of children from different backgrounds.
Implementation Challenges
Despite its transformative potential, the Court acknowledged that implementation of Section 12 has been deeply flawed. The petitioner’s case illustrated how procedural rigidity, digital illiteracy, language barriers, and lack of transparency can effectively deny children their constitutional right.
The Court noted several systemic issues:
- Over-reliance on online admission portals despite widespread digital illiteracy.
- Lack of help desks or assistance for poor parents.
- Absence of clear information about seat availability.
- Arbitrary rejection of applications without opportunities for correction.
- Weak grievance redressal mechanisms.
These failures, the Court observed, undermine not only the right to education but also the constitutional promise of equality and fraternity.
Role of Child Rights Commissions
Under Section 31 of the RTE Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions are entrusted with monitoring implementation and addressing grievances. The NCPCR had issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to streamline admissions under Section 12(1)(c).
While appreciating these efforts, the Court held that SOPs lack enforceability unless backed by statutory rules. The absence of binding subordinate legislation results in uncertainty and uneven implementation across States.
Directions of the Supreme Court
Recognising the urgency of the issue, the Supreme Court issued several important directions:
- Framing of Rules: States and Union Territories were directed to frame enforceable rules under Section 38 of the RTE Act for implementing Section 12(1)(c).
- Consultation with Child Rights Bodies: The rule-making process must involve the NCPCR, State Commissions, and Advisory Councils.
- Monitoring Role of NCPCR: The NCPCR was impleaded as a party and tasked with monitoring compliance and filing status reports.
- Judicial Oversight: The Court retained the matter for further hearing to ensure sustained compliance.
These directions reflect the Court’s recognition that judicial intervention is necessary to convert constitutional ideals into lived realities.
Conclusion
The judgment in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra is a powerful reaffirmation of the transformative vision underlying the RTE Act. It situates Section 12(1)(c) not merely as a welfare provision but as a constitutional mechanism for fostering fraternity, equality of status, and social cohesion.
By insisting that children from diverse backgrounds study together in neighbourhood schools, the RTE Act challenges the deep-rooted segregation that has long characterised Indian society. The Supreme Court’s interpretation underscores that education is not only about literacy or employability but about nation-building through shared childhood experiences.
Ultimately, the case reminds us that fraternity cannot be legislated into existence through lofty declarations alone. It must be cultivated through everyday institutions like schools, where children learn not just mathematics and language, but also empathy, mutual respect, and the meaning of being equal members of a democratic society. The effective implementation of the RTE Act, therefore, is not just an educational imperative but a constitutional mission.
Important Link
