Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of RTE Act to Minority Schools
- Sept. 30, 2025, 4:35 p.m.
The SC ruled that all schools, except minority-operated institutions, must follow the RTE Act, 2009, until a more prominent Bench decides the reference. A Bench of Justices Manmohan and Dipankar Datta made this ruling while relating the matter to the Chief Justice of India to determine if the effects need a larger Bench.
The Court found that schools set under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act must follow its provisions, apart from those launched and handled by linguistic or religious minorities, until the reference is resolved. Accordingly, in-service teachers, irrespective of their years of service, must qualify for the Teacher Eligibility Test to proceed in service. The Bench clarified that TET forms one of the least qualifications under Section 23, RTE Act.
Case Background
Various Civil Appeals challenged HC judgments considering TET’s applicability to minority educational institutions. The Court questions involved:
-
- Whether teachers selected before the NCTE notification 2011, with more experience, must clear the TET to qualify for a higher position.
- Whether the State can mandate TET qualification for teachers looking for selection in minority institutions, and if so, whether this would be a constitutional right violation of minorities.
Minority institutions opposed mandatory TET, debating that it limited their right to select teachers. Individual teachers' selection before the RTE Act came into force also indicated that TET should not be a consideration for their promotions.
Court’s Observations
The SC stressed that judicial opinions must tolerate the test of time and meaningfully deal with the problems they seek to resolve. It declared that Article 30(1), which allows minorities the right to set up and deal with institutions, cannot override Article 21A, which ensures the right to education.
The Court concluded that minority institutions, while independent in maintaining their linguistic and cultural identity, function within the wider constitutional environment, once they offer primary education and look for State affiliation, aid and recognition. Hence, they cannot claim sheer resistance from statutory models such as the RTE Act.
The Court stressed that quality education needs highly qualified teachers, making TET a compulsory qualification for promotions and fresh appointments. It declined statements that long-serving teachers should be free, agreeing that top teaching standards are important for meaningful education.
Recruitment vs Appointment
The Court made a difference between appointment and recruitment. Recruitment refers to the overall procedure, involving selection, leading to an appointment. Recruitment may have external sources (direct appointments from outside) or internal sources (promotions & transfers). The Court held that minimum qualifications such as TET apply not only to starting appointments but to promotions as well.
The SC concluded that TET is a necessary qualification for anyone looking for promotion or appointment as a teacher. It cleared up that carrying out the RTE Act does not erode the minority tone of institutions but assures educational quality in line with constitutional goals.
