SC Flags Applicability of RTE Act & TET to Minority Institutions – Refers Key Issues to Larger Bench

Case Name: Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Others (with connected appeals)

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025 & batch; 2025 INSC 1063

Date of Judgment: 1 September 2025

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta (authoring judgment)

Held: The Supreme Court considered challenges concerning the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)—particularly Section 23 relating to Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)—to minority institutions. It noted conflicting High Court views and the earlier ruling in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014), which had held the RTE Act inapplicable to minority institutions. Observing that the issues touch upon the balance between Article 21A (Right to Education) and Article 30(1) (minority rights), the Court referred the question to a larger bench for authoritative resolution.

Separately, the Court also addressed the question of TET’s applicability to in-service teachers appointed before 2009, and the requirement of TET for promotions.

Summary: The batch of appeals arose from divergent High Court rulings (Bombay & Madras) on whether minority institutions are bound by the RTE Act’s provisions, especially the TET mandate for teacher appointments and promotions.

Key issues considered:

• Applicability of TET to Minority Institutions:
• Bombay High Court upheld State’s insistence on TET for minority institutions.
• Madras High Court, relying on Pramati (2014), held minority institutions exempt.
• Petitioners argued Article 30 grants blanket immunity; respondents argued that children’s right to quality education under Article 21A prevails.
• TET Requirement for In-Service Teachers & Promotions:
• Teachers appointed prior to 2010 notifications claimed exemption from TET for promotions.
• States argued TET is mandatory to ensure minimum standards in education.
• Interplay of Articles 21A, 19(1)(g), and 30(1):
• Court traced the constitutional journey from Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (2012) to Pramati (2014).
• It questioned whether Pramati’s blanket exemption for minority institutions was too wide and whether it needs reconsideration.
• The judgment analyzed the legislative framework (RTE Act, NCTE Act, notifications mandating TET) and extensive arguments from both sides, noting deep constitutional implications.

Decision: The Court referred the conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1), and the applicability of Section 23 RTE Act (TET requirement) to minority institutions, to a larger bench for authoritative determination.

It clarified that until such larger bench ruling, the position remains governed by Pramati (2014)—meaning minority institutions are exempt from RTE obligations.

On the issue of in-service teachers and promotions, the Court held that detailed consideration would depend on the larger bench’s resolution, though it stressed that TET is aimed at ensuring quality education and cannot be diluted casually.