By Binny Yadav
Can the absence of a single tick mark on an online admission form shut the school gates on a six-year-old child? Can a digital lapse become a life sentence of exclusion—especially when the parents are poor, barely literate, and often unfamiliar with computers or smartphones?
These unsettling questions lie at the heart of a recent Supreme Court judgment that may well reshape how India understands the right to education—not as a procedural entitlement contingent on flawless compliance, but as a constitutional guarantee that cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technology or bureaucratic convenience.
In a country where basic literacy itself remains elusive for millions, the insistence on perfect digital navigation raises fundamental concerns. When parents struggle to read, write, or even access the internet, can the State wash its hands of responsibility by pointing to an online portal? And more importantly, should a child bear the consequences of circumstances she did not choose?
The Supreme Court has now answered with unmistakable clarity. Constitutional rights, the Court held, cannot be “defeated by procedural lapses or administrative convenience”—particularly when the beneficiary is a child whose right to education enjoys independent constitutional protection.
THE CASE THAT RAISED LARGER QUESTIONS
In Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, the apex court was confronted with a scenario that has become all too familiar in India’s rapidly digitised governance framework. The petitioner had sought admission for his children under the 25 per cent quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), mandated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009.
His plea was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on the ground that he had failed to apply under the RTE quota during the online admission process. Legally neat. Procedurally tidy. But constitutionally troubling.
A bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, chose to look beyond the missed checkbox to examine the deeper constitutional injury at stake. Reading Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act in conjunction with Article 21A of the Constitution, the Court held that state governments, local authorities, and neighbourhood schools carry a binding obligation to ensure that no child from weaker or disadvantaged sections is denied admission. Crucially, this obligation is not passive. It cannot be discharged merely by designing an online system and stepping aside.
EDUCATION: FROM POLICY PROMISE TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
The significance of the judgment lies in its reaffirmation of India’s long constitutional journey on education. Schooling was not always a fundamental right. It evolved through landmark judicial interpretations—most notably Mohini Jain and Unnikrishnan—before being formally entrenched through the 86th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 21A.
This amendment transformed education from a policy aspiration into a justiciable right, imposing a positive and enforceable duty on the State. The RTE Act was enacted to give tangible form to this constitutional promise. Its philosophy is unequivocal: no child should be left unattended or uneducated.
Article 21A mandates that “the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.” This obligation, the Court underlined, is unconditional. It is not subject to parental literacy, digital access, or procedural perfection.
The 25 per cent reservation in private unaided schools is perhaps the most radical expression of this vision. It recognises that meaningful equality cannot coexist with segregation by income, caste, or social privilege. An educated child is not merely an individual success story—she represents the nation’s future social, economic, and democratic capital.
WHEN PROCEDURE UNDERMINES JUSTICE
Yet, the lived reality often falls short of constitutional ideals. As governance systems become increasingly digitised, access gaps have widened. For families living on the margins, computer literacy is not merely absent—it is often unattainable. Language barriers, lack of internet connectivity, and unfamiliarity with formal processes routinely obstruct access to entitlements.
In this context, denying a child admission because her parent failed to navigate an online form converts a fundamental right into a conditional privilege. The Supreme Court’s ruling recognises this danger and emphatically asserts that procedure exists to facilitate rights—not to frustrate them.
The Court’s insistence that neighbourhood schools are equally bound to ensure admissions under the RTE quota is particularly significant. Responsibility does not rest solely on parents or the State; it is shared by institutions that are integral to the educational ecosystem.
WHY NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHOOLS MATTER
The concept of the “neighbourhood school” lies at the heart of the RTE framework. It ensures physical accessibility, reduces drop-out rates, and integrates children into their immediate social environment. By reiterating that such schools must admit children from EWS and disadvantaged sections up to the mandated 25 per cent, the Supreme Court has reinforced that private educational institutions cannot operate in isolation from constitutional values.
Education, the Court reminds us, is not a market commodity alone. Schools function within a constitutional order and benefit from State recognition, land, and regulation. With these privileges come responsibilities—foremost among them, the duty to uphold the right to education.
Once a private school seeks recognition under law, the Court observed, it “cannot claim immunity from constitutional obligations” and must function in harmony with the State’s duty to realise this right.
CORRECTING THE HIGH COURT’S NARROW LENS
While the Bombay High Court’s decision was procedurally sound, it failed to engage with the larger constitutional canvas. Its focus on the parent’s omission overlooked a fundamental truth: the real rights-holder is the child, not the parent.
The Supreme Court’s intervention was therefore both corrective and necessary. By keeping the matter pending for compliance and impleading the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the Court sent a clear message—implementation failures will no longer be excused as administrative oversights. Child rights demand proactive enforcement.
BEYOND COMPUTERS: THE REALITY OF LITERACY
Perhaps the most enduring significance of this judgment lies in its recognition of lived realities. When basic literacy itself remains a challenge, expecting digital fluency as a gateway to a fundamental right is profoundly inequitable.
As the Court poignantly noted, the Constitution does not permit the future of a child to be determined by the failure of a digital process. In restoring the primacy of human dignity over administrative rigidity, the judgment compels policymakers to confront uncomfortable, but necessary questions: How inclusive are our systems? Who is excluded by design? And how can the State ensure that every eligible child is identified, supported, and admitted—regardless of parental capacity?
The ruling’s implications extend far beyond Maharashtra. It strengthens the hands of parents, activists, and child-rights bodies across the country. More importantly, it places neighbourhood schools on unmistakable constitutional notice: the 25 per cent EWS quota is mandatory, not optional.
In reaffirming that education cannot be defeated by procedural lapses, the Supreme Court has upheld not merely a statute, but the very spirit of the Constitution.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator
The post A Missed Checkbox Cannot Cancel a Child’s Future appeared first on India Legal.