In a significant observation, the Delhi High Court has stated that while every child has a right to education, this does not include the right to insist on admission to a particular school.
The bench, led by Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, underlined that the Right to Education framework is meant to ensure access, not preference.
The court highlighted that the Right to Education Act is a welfare-oriented legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and breaking down social barriers in education. It seeks to create a shared schooling environment for children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
WHY WAS THE PLEA FILED?
The case arose from a mother’s appeal seeking admission for her child into Class 2 under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in a private school for the 2024–25 academic session. Previously, she had approached a single-judge bench requesting Class 1 admission for the 2023–24 session.
Although the earlier bench noted that the school did not have strong grounds to deny admission, it also observed that since the academic year had already concluded, no direction could be issued for admission in the following year. It added that any unfilled EWS seats would be carried forward and remain open to eligible applicants, including the child in question.
WHY DID THE COURT DENY RELIEF?
Hearing the appeal, the division bench refused to grant admission into Class 2. It reasoned that in the absence of any interim order reserving a seat during the earlier proceedings, the child’s claim to that specific school lapsed with the end of the academic year.
The court also pointed out that the Directorate of Education had already allotted a seat to the child in another school listed among the parent’s preferences. However, the parent chose not to accept this alternative.
WHAT WERE THE PARENT’S CLAIMS?
The appellant argued that her child had been selected through an official draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education in March 2023. She alleged that despite selection, the school delayed the admission process and later placed the child on a waiting list, citing pending admissions under the general category.
She further claimed that when she visited the school for document verification, she was not allowed to proceed and was told to wait for further communication.
WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN GOING FORWARD?
The court reiterated that the right to education ensures access to schooling but cannot be stretched to demand admission in a specific institution. It also noted that reasonable alternatives offered by authorities should be considered, especially when procedural timelines have passed.
The ruling serves as a reminder that while the RTE framework guarantees educational opportunities, it does not override administrative processes or confer the right to select a particular school.
