New Delhi- In a judgment of profound constitutional and social significance, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan has expressed "serious doubts" on its own 2014 precedent that completely exempted minority educational institutions from the ambit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The bench has referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench for reconsideration, potentially reopening a decades-old debate on the balance between minority rights and the universal right to quality elementary education.

While making this pivotal referral, the Court unequivocally upheld the mandatory nature of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as a essential qualification for all teachers, both at the time of appointment and for promotion, in all non-minority schools. The Court also provided crucial relief to thousands of experienced in-service teachers who were facing termination for not clearing the TET.

The Core Conflict: Article 21A vs. Article 30(1)

The heart of the legal conundrum lies in a perceived conflict between two fundamental rights:

• Article 21A: The Right to Education, which mandates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14.

• Article 30(1): The Right of minorities (religious or linguistic) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The RTE Act is the legislative framework enacted to realize Article 21A. It mandates not just free admission for disadvantaged children but also critical norms for infrastructure, pupil-teacher ratio, and, most importantly, teacher qualifications.

In the 2014 case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the entire RTE Act was ultra vires the Constitution insofar as it applied to minority institutions (aided or unaided). The primary fear was that Section 12(1)(c), which mandates 25% reservation for children from weaker sections, would alter the minority character of these institutions.

Why the 2025 Bench Doubted the 2014 Precedent

The present bench meticulously analyzed the fallout of the Pramati judgment and found its blanket exemption deeply problematic.

Sweeping Conclusion, Limited Analysis: 

The Court noted that the Pramati bench focused almost exclusively on the admission quota under Section 12(1)(c) but then proceeded to exempt minority institutions from the entirety of the RTE Act. This included crucial provisions on infrastructure, safety, and teacher qualifications (like the TET). The 2025 bench found this leap unjustified, stating: *"In the absence of any analysis of the other sections of the RTE Act vis-à-vis Article 30(1), the blanket exclusion... appears legally suspect and questionable apart from being disproportionate."

The "Cost of Exclusion": 

The judgment heavily relied on a 2021 study by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to highlight the adverse consequences of the exemption. The study revealed that only 8.76% of students in minority schools came from disadvantaged sections, and a staggering 62.5% were from non-minority communities. The bench observed that 85% of minority status certificates were issued after 2006, suggesting that the tag was being used as a "regulatory loophole" to avoid inclusive mandates, turning Article 30(1) into a "tool for evading necessary and child-centric regulatory standards."

No Right to "Mal-administer": 

The Court reiterated the settled principle that the right to administer under Article 30(1) is not absolute and does not include the right to "mal-administer." It emphasized that basic regulations ensuring quality education do not destroy minority character but are essential for upholding the students' right under Article 21A. "The constitutional guarantee under Article 30(1)... was intended to preserve cultural and linguistic identity and not to provide institutions unqualified immunity from laws framed in the best interest of children," the bench stated.

A Harmonious Reading is Possible:

 The bench proposed a solution to the Section 12(1)(c) dilemma itself. It noted that the 25% quota could be filled by admitting children from the same minority community who are economically weak or socially disadvantaged. *"Compliance with Section 12(1)(c) need not come at the cost of eroding the minority character of the school... This would not only preserve the institution’s cultural and religious identity but could also affirm its commitment to intra-community upliftment."

The TET Mandate Upheld: What It Means for Teachers

On the second major issue, the Court firmly upheld the validity and necessity of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

• TET is a Mandatory Qualification: Dismissing arguments that TET is merely an "eligibility test" and not a "qualification," the Court ruled it is an essential minimum qualification prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act to ensure quality education. "The TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher... Only upon a person obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment."

• Applicable for Promotion: The Court also held that the term "appointment" in the RTE Act includes promotion. Therefore, TET is mandatory for in-service teachers seeking promotion.

• Relief for Experienced Teachers: In a balancing act using its extraordinary power under Article 142, the Court provided relief to existing teachers:

  • Teachers with less than 5 years to retire: Can continue in service until retirement without clearing TET. However, they will not be eligible for promotion.

  • Teachers with more than 5 years to retire: They must clear the TET within two years from today. Failure to do so will lead to compulsory retirement (with full terminal benefits if they have qualifying service).

The Referral: Questions for the Larger Bench

The two-judge bench, bound by judicial discipline, could not overrule the five-judge Pramati verdict. Instead, it has referred the following seminal questions to the Chief Justice of India, recommending they be placed before a larger seven-judge Constitution Bench:

1. Whether the blanket exemption in Pramati needs reconsideration?

2. Whether, if Section 12(1)(c) is problematic, it should be read down to include only disadvantaged children from the same minority community, rather than being struck down entirely?

3. What is the effect of the Pramati verdict not considering Article 29(2) (which prohibits discrimination in state-aided institutions) while exempting aided minority schools?

4. Whether it was correct to declare the entire RTE Act unconstitutional for minorities based on a challenge primarily to one provision?

Impact on the Indian Education Landscape

For Minority Schools: The referral creates immediate uncertainty. While the Pramati exemption remains the law for now, its future is under a cloud. Schools may need to prepare for potential application of RTE norms, especially concerning teacher qualifications.

For Teachers: The judgment provides a clear, albeit strict, roadmap. TET is now unequivocally mandatory for all new appointments and promotions in non-minority schools. The two-year window for in-service teachers is a final chance to comply.

For Students: This judgment reinforces the primacy of the child's right to quality education. If the larger bench eventually overturns Pramati, it would ensure that millions of children in minority schools are guaranteed the same standards of infrastructure, safety, and qualified teachers as those in non-minority schools.

For Policy: The Supreme Court has strongly endorsed the TET and other RTE norms as essential for maintaining educational standards. It sends a clear message to all states and school administrations against diluting these quality-control measures.

This referral marks a potential watershed moment. By questioning the absolute primacy of institutional autonomy over the universal right to quality education, the Supreme Court has reignited a crucial dialogue about the very meaning of equity and inclusion in India's classrooms. The final word now rests with an even larger bench of the nation's highest court.