Daily Mains Question - GS 2 - 9th September 2025
- TPP
- Sep 9
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 10
Welcome to your Daily UPSC Mains Answer Writing Practice – GS Paper 2 (Governance, Constitution, Polity & Social Justice).
Today’s question revisits a key constitutional debate arising from the 2014 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India judgment, which exempted minority-run educational institutions—both aided and unaided—from the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. This sweeping exemption, now under judicial scrutiny by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, has reignited concerns about the balance between institutional autonomy under Article 30(1) and the enforceability of Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14.
The controversy lies at the intersection of minority rights, educational equity, and constitutional interpretation. The RTE Act mandates norms like infrastructure quality, qualified teachers, and a 25% reservation for children from disadvantaged groups in private schools—measures seen as essential for achieving inclusive education. Yet, the Pramati verdict viewed these obligations as infringing on the right of minorities to administer institutions of their choice. The issue has gained renewed significance as the Court considers whether blanket immunity erodes the State’s responsibility to ensure universal access to quality education.
This topic remains critical for UPSC preparation, as it explores themes of fundamental rights, constitutional harmony, child-centric policy, and the role of the judiciary in social transformation. It is deeply linked to the larger discourse on inclusive governance, educational justice, and the constitutional vision of a plural and equitable society.
Click Here to read the Monthly Current Affairs Pointers (CAP).
QUESTION
Recently, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the sweeping exemption carved out by the Constitution Bench in the 2014 case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India. What is the core constitutional issue involved? Discuss in the light of relevant Constitutional Articles.
Answer: The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India created a significant exemption by ruling that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, does not apply to minority-run educational institutions—whether aided or unaided. Recently, this exemption has been called into question by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, reopening a debate on balancing minority rights with the right to education.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
1. Article 21A: Right to Education
Inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, Article 21A mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years as a Fundamental Right.
The RTE Act, 2009 operationalizes this right and introduces norms for:
Compulsory admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education.
Standards for infrastructure, teacher qualification, and pupil-teacher ratio.
Reservation of 25% seats in private unaided schools for children from disadvantaged groups (Section 12(1)(c)).
2. Article 30(1): Minority Rights
Article 30(1) guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
It aims to preserve minority identity and autonomy, free from undue State interference.
3. Article 29(1): Cultural Rights
Protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture, reinforcing the intent of Article 30.
4. Section 1(4) of the RTE Act
States that the Act shall apply subject to Articles 29 and 30, implying a legislative attempt to balance minority rights with universal education goals.
The Pramati Judgment (2014)
A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the validity of Article 21A and the RTE Act but exempted all minority institutions—both aided and unaided—from its provisions.
Key reasoning:
Applying the RTE Act, especially Section 12(1)(c), to minority institutions would “alter the composition” of such schools and potentially erode their minority character, violating Article 30(1).
The Court concluded that imposing RTE norms on minority schools would abrogate their constitutional autonomy.
Recent Judicial Review (2025)
In Tushar v. Union of India, a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned whether such a blanket exemption was justified.
The Court noted that:
Universal and inclusive education under Article 21A should not be subordinated to institutional autonomy.
Infrastructure, teacher qualifications, and TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) are quality benchmarks, not violations of minority character.
Autonomy under Article 30(1) must coexist with State’s obligation under Article 21A.
Key Observations:
Exempting minority institutions creates a regulatory loophole.
Admitting disadvantaged children does not inherently dilute the minority character; composition alone is not determinative.
Suggested a case-by-case analysis instead of blanket exemptions.
Core Constitutional Issue
The core issue lies in the perceived conflict between:
Article 21A | Article 30(1) |
Fundamental Right of the child to free and quality education | Fundamental Right of minorities to establish and administer institutions of their choice |
Emphasizes public interest and equity | Emphasizes institutional autonomy and identity preservation |
Child-centric | Group-centric |
The challenge is to harmonize these provisions without undermining either the child’s fundamental right or the minority’s cultural rights.
Implications of the Exemption
1. Impact on Inclusive Education
Over 1.5 lakh schools claim minority status in India; many are elite institutions.
Exemption from RTE norms, especially the 25% quota, limits social diversity in classrooms.
Undermines the vision of education as a tool of social justice and democratic equity.
2. Misuse of Minority Status
Reports of commercial institutions securing minority status solely to evade RTE compliance.
Dilutes the intended purpose of minority protections.
3. Quality and Accountability
Exemption from norms like TET, infrastructure, and teacher-student ratios affects educational standards.
Children studying in such schools may be deprived of quality education.
Way Forward: Harmonious Construction
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction under Constitutional interpretation mandates reconciling conflicting rights.
Article 30(1) is not absolute; reasonable regulations that do not interfere with minority identity can be justified in public interest.
A graded or conditional exemption, especially for unaided minority institutions, could be explored.
Minority institutions receiving State aid (public funds) can be held to higher public obligations.
The Pramati exemption presents a complex constitutional dilemma between institutional autonomy and the child’s right to equitable education. As the matter now awaits reconsideration by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, a nuanced and balanced approach is essential. Constitutional morality demands that the State’s duty to provide universal, inclusive, and quality education under Article 21A should not be subordinated to a blanket institutional exemption, especially when public funds are involved. Upholding both pluralism and equity is vital for achieving the true spirit of the Constitution.
Key Facts & Data (for value addition)
|
Note: The upcoming larger bench ruling will have a significant bearing on the future of educational equity, minority rights, and the interpretation of constitutional protections.
Previous Daily UPSC Mains Question
Download NCERTs Pdfs
Read Daily Quotes
Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X
Comments