The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed “serious doubts” about the correctness of its 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, which granted a blanket exemption to all minority educational institutions from the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). A two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan has referred the issue for reconsideration by a larger bench.
Simultaneously, the Court delivered a definitive ruling on the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), holding it to be a mandatory qualification for both new appointments and promotions for teachers in all non-minority schools. It invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide a transitional framework for existing in-service teachers to acquire the qualification.
Background of the Case
The judgment was delivered on a batch of civil appeals arising from conflicting decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts. The core issues involved were:
- Whether the State can compel minority educational institutions to only appoint teachers who have qualified the TET.
- Whether teachers appointed prior to the enforcement of the RTE Act and having significant teaching experience are required to qualify the TET to be eligible for promotion.
The appellants included minority educational institutions challenging the TET mandate, state authorities insisting on its universal application for maintaining educational standards, and individual in-service teachers aggrieved by the requirement of TET for their career advancement. The Bombay High Court, in one judgment, had upheld the TET requirement for minority schools, while the Madras High Court, following the Pramati decision, had held the RTE Act and its requirements inapplicable to such institutions.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel opposing the reconsideration of Pramati and the TET mandate argued that any law made under Article 21A (Right to Education) cannot abrogate the fundamental rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1). They contended that TET is merely an eligibility test, not a ‘minimum qualification’ under Section 23 of the RTE Act, and its imposition for promotions would amount to a retrospective removal of vested rights.
On the other hand, the Attorney General for India, the Additional Solicitor General, and other senior counsel argued for a reconsideration of Pramati. They submitted that the right of every child to quality education is paramount and that Article 30(1) does not grant minority institutions the right to mal-administer or ignore national standards. It was argued that exempting minority schools from the RTE Act violates Articles 14 and 21A by creating an unreasonable classification and depriving children in those schools of quality education. They asserted that Pramati’s conclusion was based solely on Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act (25% reservation) and was an obiter dictum concerning the rest of the Act.
The Court’s Analysis
The bench, in a detailed analysis, traced the constitutional journey of the right to education from a Directive Principle to a fundamental right under Article 21A, describing the RTE Act as the “living expression of a long-deferred promise.”
On the Conflict Between Article 21A and Article 30(1)
The Court expressed its view that there is no inherent conflict between the right to education (Article 21A) and the rights of minorities to establish and administer institutions (Article 30(1)). It observed that the goal of Article 30(1) is to preserve cultural and linguistic identity, not “to provide institutions unqualified immunity from laws framed in the best interest of children.”
The judgment critically examined the Pramati decision, noting that the Constitution Bench declared the entire RTE Act inapplicable to minority institutions based solely on its analysis of Section 12(1)(c), which mandates a 25% reservation for children from disadvantaged groups. The Court found this conclusion legally suspect, stating, “what then justified the sweeping conclusion that the entire RTE Act was inapplicable to minority institutions, aided or unaided? Unfortunately, Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) does not appear to offer any reasoning whatsoever for extending the exemption beyond Section 12(1)(c).”
The Court highlighted the adverse consequences of this blanket exemption, citing a study by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) which showed a sharp rise in schools applying for minority status post-2006, often “not to preserve identity, but to avoid compliance with inclusionary obligations under the RTE Act.” The bench feared that the Pramati ruling “strikes at the heart of good quality universal elementary education and its consequences are far-reaching.”
On the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
The Court firmly held that TET is a mandatory minimum qualification for teachers. It rejected the argument that ‘appointment’ in Section 23 of the RTE Act refers only to initial recruitment. The judgment clarified that the term ‘appointment’ is comprehensive and includes promotion. Therefore, the court concluded that in-service teachers aspiring for promotion must also qualify the TET.
The bench stated, “Compromising the quality of a teacher would necessarily compromise quality of education, and is a direct threat to the right of children to quality education which is a necessary concomitant of the right guaranteed by Article 21A.”
Order of Reference and Final Decision
Expressing its doubts on the correctness of the Pramati judgment, the bench referred the following questions for consideration by a larger bench:
- Whether the judgment in Pramati, exempting all minority institutions from the RTE Act, requires reconsideration.
- Whether the RTE Act infringes upon the rights of minorities under Article 30(1), and if so, whether provisions like Section 12(1)(c) could be read down instead of striking down the Act’s applicability entirely.
- The effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) (prohibiting denial of admission in state-aided institutions) in the Pramati judgment.
- Whether the entirety of the RTE Act should have been declared ultra vires minority rights when the Pramati judgment only discussed the unconstitutionality of Section 12(1)(c).
Final Order on TET for In-Service Teachers in Non-Minority Schools
Pending the decision of the larger bench, the court issued a binding order for non-minority schools:
- For Promotions and New Appointments: Qualifying the TET is mandatory for any teacher aspiring for appointment or promotion.
- For Existing In-Service Teachers:
- Teachers with less than five years of service remaining are exempt from qualifying the TET to continue in service until superannuation. However, they will not be considered for promotion without the TET qualification.
- Teachers with more than five years of service remaining must qualify the TET within two years from the date of the judgment to continue in their service. Failure to do so will lead to compulsory retirement.
The appeals related to in-service teachers of non-minority schools were disposed of with these directions. The appeals concerning minority institutions have been tagged with the reference to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
