right to education act 2009 article

भारत सरकार Government of India
शिक्षा मंत्रालय Ministry of Education
Skip to navigation

Ministry of Education, GoI

Right to Education

This site is designed, developed, hosted and maintained by National Informatics Centre (NIC), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India.

Follow us on:

Supports: Firefox 2.0+ Google Chrome 6.0+ Internet Explorer 8.0+ Safari 4.0+

Content owned & provided by Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India

Total Visitors: 11132274

IAS Preparation
UPSC Preparation Strategy
Right Education Act Rte

Right to Education Act (RTE) - Indian Polity Notes

The Right to Education Act (RTE) is important legislation that marks a watershed in the education system in India. With its enactment, the right to education has become a fundamental right in the country. In this article, you can read all about the RTE, its significance, provisions and challenges for the UPSC exam .

Read about important acts in India in the linked article.

Right to Education Act

The Act is completely titled “the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act” . It was passed by the Parliament in August 2009. When the Act came into force in 2010, India became one among 135 countries where education is a fundamental right of every child.

“The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, may by law determine.”
As per this, the right to education was made a fundamental right and removed from the list of Directive Principles of State Policy.
The RTE is the consequential legislation envisaged under the 86th Amendment.
The article incorporates the word “free” in its title. What it means is that no child (other than those admitted by his/her parents in a school not supported by the government) is liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.
This Act makes it obligatory on the part of the government to ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by all children falling in the age bracket six to fourteen years.
Essentially, this Act ensures free elementary education to all children in the economically weaker sections of society.

A few important articles that a candidate must read to cover the notes on the topic, ‘Education,’ comprehensively are linked below:

RTE Provisions

The provisions of the RTE Act are briefly described below. The Act provides for:

The right of free and compulsory education to children until they complete their elementary education in a school in the neighbourhood.
The Act makes it clear that ‘compulsory education’ implies that it is an obligation on the part of the government to ensure the admission, attendance and completion of elementary education of children between the ages of six and fourteen. The word ‘free’ indicates that no charge is payable by the child which may prevent him/her from completing such education.
The Act provides for the admission of a non-admitted child to a class of his/her appropriate age.
It mentions the duties of the respective governments, the local authorities and parents in ensuring the education of a child. It also specifies the sharing of the financial burden between the central and the state governments.
It specifies standards and norms for Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTR), infrastructure and buildings, working days of the school and for the teachers.
It also says there should be no urban-rural imbalance in teacher postings. The Act also provides for the prohibition of the employment of teachers for non-educational work, other than census, elections and disaster relief work.
The Act provides that the teachers appointed should be appropriately trained and qualified.
Mental harassment and physical punishment.
Screening procedures for the admission of children.
Capitation fees.
Private tuition by the teachers.
Running schools with no recognition.
The Act envisages that the curriculum should be developed in coherence with the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and that which would take care of the all-round development of the child. The curriculum should build on the knowledge of the child, on his/her potentiality and talents, help make the child free of trauma, fear and anxiety via a system that is both child-centric and child-friendly.

Significance of RTE

With the passing of the Right to Education Act, India has moved to a rights-based approach towards implementing education for all. This Act casts a legal obligation on the state and central governments to execute the fundamental rights of a child (as per Article 21 A of the Constitution).

The Act lays down specific standards for the student-teacher ratio, which is a very important concept in providing quality education.
It also talks about providing separate toilet facilities for girls and boys, having adequate standards for classroom conditions, drinking water facilities, etc.
The stress on avoiding the urban-rural imbalance in teachers’ posting is important as there is a big gap in the quality and numbers regarding education in the villages compared to the urban areas in the country.
The Act provides for zero tolerance against the harassment and discrimination of children. The prohibition of screening procedures for admission ensures that there would be no discrimination of children on the basis of caste, religion, gender, etc.
The Act also mandates that no kid is detained until class 8. It introduced the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system in 2009 to have grade-appropriate learning outcomes in schools.
The Act also provides for the formation of a School Management Committee (SMC) in every school in order to promote participatory democracy and governance in all elementary schools. These committees have the authority to monitor the school’s functioning and prepare developmental plans for it.
The Act is justiciable and has a Grievance Redressal mechanism that permits people to take action when the provisions of the Act are not complied with.
This provision is included in Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. All schools (private, unaided, aided or special category) must reserve 25% of their seats at the entry level for students from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.
When the rough version of the Act was drafted in 2005, there was a lot of outcry in the country against this large percentage of seats being reserved for the underprivileged. However, the framers of the draft stood their ground and were able to justify the 25% reservation in private schools.
This provision is a far-reaching move and perhaps the most important step in so far as inclusive education is concerned.
This provision seeks to achieve social integration.
The loss incurred by the schools as a result of this would be reimbursed by the central government.
The Act has increased enrolment in the upper primary level (Class 6-8) between 2009 and 2016 by 19.4%.
In rural areas, in 2016, only 3.3% of children in the 6 – 14 years bracket were out of school.

Criticism of RTE Act

Even though the RTE Act is a step in the right direction towards the achievement of making education truly free and compulsory in India, it has met with several criticisms. Some of the criticisms are given below:

The Act was drafted hastily without much thought or consultation being given to the quality of education imparted.
Children below 6 years are not covered under the Act.
Many of the schemes under the Act have been compared to the previous schemes on education such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, and have been plagued with corruption charges and inefficiency.
At the time of admissions, many documents such as birth certificate, BPL certificate, etc. are required. This move seems to have left out orphans from being beneficiaries of the Act.
There have been implementational hurdles in the 25% reservation of seats for EWS and others in private schools. Some of the challenges in this regard are discriminatory behaviour towards parents and difficulties experienced by students to fit in with a different socio-cultural milieu.
In case a student fails in the annual exam, he/she is given extra training and made to appear for a re-exam. If this re-exam is not passed, the student can be detained in the class.
This amendment was made after many states complained that without regular exams, the learning levels of children could not be evaluated effectively.
The states which were against this amendment were six states with higher learning outcomes due to their effective implementation of the CCE system as mandated in the Act. (The six states were Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Telangana and Maharashtra.)
It has been found that many states find it difficult to move to the CCE system of assessment. This is chiefly due to a lack of teachers’ training and orientation.
Another criticism levelled against the Act is that instead of increasing the standards and outcomes of the public education system in India, it passes the buck to private schools with some respect.

Making the right to education a fundamental right took more than 6 decades after independence. Now, the government and all stakeholders should focus on the quality of education, and gradually move towards having a single educational system and platform across the country for all sections of society to foster equality, inclusion, and unity.

Kickstart your UPSC 2024 Preparation today!

Right to Education Act (RTE) – Indian Polity:- Download PDF Here

UPSC Questions related to the Right to Education Act (RTE)

What are the basic features of right to education act.

Some of the basic features of the RTE are:

Free and compulsory education for all children in the age group 6 to 14.
There will not be any detention or examination until elementary education is completed. However, there has been an amendment to this (as mentioned above in the criticisms of the Act).
This makes providing education a legal obligation of the governments.
It also makes it mandatory for all private schools to reserve 25% of their seats for the EWS and disadvantaged groups.

What is the age limit for RTE?

All children between the ages of 6 and 14 have the right to free education under the provisions of the Act.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

Article 21 deals with the right to life and personal liberty. It is a fundamental right. To know more click on Right to Life (Article 21) – Indian Polity Notes .

What is the importance of the right to education?

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy .

AEA Papers and Proceedings

The Right to Education Act: Trends in Enrollment, Test Scores, and School Quality

Manisha Shah
Bryce Steinberg
Article Information

Additional Materials

Replication Package (150.34 KB)
Online Appendix (4.80 MB)
Author Disclosure Statement(s) (50.69 KB)

JEL Classification

O15 Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration

Overview Of Right To Education Act, 2009 In Contemporary India

Right to education act, 2009, issues and challenges before rte act:.

Age cap 6-14 years why not 0-18 years Only kids between the ages of 6 to 14years of age are eligible for the rights under the law. Despite the fact that India has signed the U.N. charter, which explicitly specifies that free education should be made mandatory for all children up to the age of 18, it excludes younger children (under the age of 6) and older ones (14�18). Critics counter that while the next four years of adolescence are as crucial to a child's maturation process, the years from 0 to 6 are the most delicate and important in a child's development and that stopping at 14 means abandoning the task before it has even begun. For a person to live at least a minimally respectable life, education up to the age of 14 is in no way sufficient.

RTE law excludes children with special needs (CWSN)

Situation of low-income students in private schools, teachers are not enough trained, admission based on age, but no bridge course infrastructure, benefits of rte act:.

Community Benefit Community development is ensured by education. It guarantees the nation's advancement. As a result, one benefit of the RTE ACT is that it ensures the growth of the community and the country as a whole.

Ensure quality education

Educational equality, exterminate poverty, absolute intolerance for discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act,_2009
http://educationindiajournal.org/home_art_avi.php?path=&id=185
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1925/Right-to-Education.html
https://dsel.education.gov.in/rte
https://socialissuesindia.wordpress.com/2020/07/17/rte-act-2009-anomalies-and-challenges/
https://collegemarker.com/blogs/right-to-education-in-india-act/

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Critical Analysis Of Right ...

Is The New Law On Election ...

How a Witness Should Depose...

Limitations Of Adverse Poss...

Understanding Juvenile Just...

Conundrum Surrounding GST O...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

Right to Education Act 2009, Article 21A, 86th Constitutional Amendment

Under Right to Education Act every child between the ages of 6 to 14 years has the right to free & compulsory education. Know all about the Right to Education Act 2009, Article 21A & 86th Amendment.

Table of Contents

Right to Education

Education is the lifeline of any nation, and without it, those nations cannot live. As a result, education is the foundation of the nation. It is essential for a democracy’s general development and efficient operation. Education makes people more competent and likeable, and as they advance, so does the nation.

It is viewed as the pillar of society that underpins political stability, social advancement, and economic prosperity. Education is a person’s fourth basic need, behind clothing, shelter, and food. It serves as the cornerstone on which society is erected. Only through education are social justice and equality attainable.

Article 21A of Indian Constitution

The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution of India , requiring each state to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen. This declares education to be a Fundamental Rights protected by Part III of the Constitution. The Right to Education Act, 2009, sometimes referred to as the RTE Act, was approved by the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2009, and came into force in 2010.

Read about: Right to Property

Right to Education Background

The majority of the population was illiterate and extremely poor when India earned independence from the British in 1947, and this situation had to be taken into consideration when drafting the Constitution.

The Sergeant Commission 1944, which was the last British education commission, predicted that universal education would be available in 40 years, or by 1985. It realised for the system with pre-primary education for children between 3 to 6 years of age; universal, compulsory and free primary basic education for all children of ages 6—11 (junior basic) and 11—14 (senior basic) as stated under Wardha Scheme ; the Senior Basic or the Middle School to be the final stage in the school career of majority of the students.
Originally enacted, Article 45 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy , required the State to use every reasonable means to ensure that every child received free and mandatory education until the age of fourteen, within ten years of the Constitution’s inception. The Directive Principles of State Policy are not “enforceable in a court of law,” but the State is nonetheless compelled to use them when passing laws since “the principles therein set out are nonetheless important in the governing of the country,” according to the Constitution.
In order to expand basic education facilities, particularly in undeveloped areas, and make education available to every person by giving it freely and mandatorily with a focus on elementary education, the 42nd Amendment of Indian Constitution of 1976 declared education a concurrent concern.
With the objective of providing universal primary education, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan [National Campaign for Education for All] national umbrella programme was started in 2000.
Ultimately, the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 introduced Article 21A, a fundamental right that is subject to judicial scrutiny. Early childhood care and education (for children under the age of six) being excluded from the scope of the justified right is one of the amendment’s features that has drawn a lot of criticism.

Read about: Right to Privacy

Right to Education as Fundamental Rights

The Directive Principles of State Policy included universal education under Article 45, and although the members of the Constituent Assembly recognised its importance, they were unable to guarantee it as a fundamental right due to a lack of funds.

In the 1993 case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Indian court system attempted to add the right to education as a component of the Right to Life. The Indian Parliament also granted the right to an education to the country’s future citizens by a constitutional amendment that was approved in 2002 by inserting a new Article 21A in the constitution.

The Right to Education Act, 2009, sometimes referred to as the RTE Act, was approved by the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2009. Indian children ages 6 to 14 must get free, compulsory education, as stated in Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. By putting this Act into effect on April 1, 2010, India became one of the 135 countries that have declared that every kid has a basic right to an education.

86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

To make it clearer that children between the ages of 6 and 14 have a basic right to free and compulsory education, the 86th Amendment Act of 2002 added three explicit sections to the Constitution. The goal of this amendment was to safeguard citizens’ rights to education and take into account India’s educational difficulties.

The inclusion of Article 21A in Part III of the Indian Constitution states every child has the right to a full-time elementary education of appropriate and equitable quality in a formal school that complies with certain fundamental norms and criteria.
“The State shall endeavour to ensure early childhood care and free and mandatory education for all children up to the age of six,” according to the new provision in Article 45.
The addition of a new clause Article 51 A (k) under Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) makes it explicitly mandatory for parents to provide opportunities for their children of ages between 6 and 14 to get the opportunity of an education.

Right To Education Act 2009

The reasons due to the enactment of the Right to Education Act, of 2009 have been provided here.

Right To Education Act 2009 Provisions

The right of children to receive a local school’s free, compulsory education up until they finish their primary education.
The Act makes it crystal clear that “compulsory education” indicates that the government has a duty to ensure that children between the ages of six and fourteen be admitted, attend, and completed primary education. The word “free” denotes that there are no fees the youngster must pay that would keep him or her from completing such education.
According to the Act, a child who has not been admitted may be admitted to a class for his or her suitable age.
In order to ensure a child’s education, it outlines the responsibilities of the respective governments, local authorities, and parents. Additionally, it outlines the financial burden distribution between the federal and state governments.
It outlines rules and regulations for infrastructure and structures, working days for the school and instructors, and pupil-teacher ratios (PTR).
In addition, it states that teacher postings shouldn’t be imbalanced between urban and rural areas. The Act forbids hiring instructors for non-educational jobs, with the exception of census, election, and disaster relief activities.
The Act stipulates that the teachers chosen must possess the necessary credentials and training.
This Law forbids Physical punishment and Mental harassment, Screening measures for youngsters being admitted, Capitation costs, instructors giving private lessons, and Running schools without being acknowledged.
According to the Act, the curriculum should be created in a way that is consistent with the ideals entrenched in the Indian Constitution and that ensures the child’s whole development. The curriculum should develop the child’s knowledge, potential, and talents while utilising a method that is both child-centric and child-friendly to assist the child to overcome trauma, fear, and anxiety.

Right to Education UPSC

The amendment to the fundamental right to education is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in Indian history to guarantee that kids get a basic education. Children are the future of the country. Therefore, education serves as a tool for exposing a child to cultural values, preparing him for future career training, and helping him to adjust to his environment normally. Without education, a youngster today cannot succeed in life. Everyone has an equal claim to the fundamental right to an education. Therefore, basic education is the most important component of higher education.

Read More: Education System in British India

Sharing is caring!

What is Article 21A to the Indian Constitution?

Article 21A to the Indian Constitution “state shall provide free & compulsory education to all children of age between 6 to 14 a determined by law

What is 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002?

86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002, inserted this new Article in Part III of the constitution, “state shall provide free & compulsory education to all children of age between 6 to 14 a determined by law”.

What is Article 51 A (k)?

The addition of a new clause Article 51 A (k) under Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) makes it explicitly mandatory for parents to provide opportunities for their children of ages between 6 and 14 to get the opportunity of education.

What is Article 45?

The state shall provide for early childhood care & education to children below age 6 years.

When Supreme Court recognised Right to Education as a Fundamental Rights?

Supreme Court in case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) recognised Right to Education as a Fundamental Rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.

indian polity

BPSC Exam 2024

BPSC 70th Notification
BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
BPSC Admit Card
BPSC Syllabus
BPSC Exam Pattern
BPSC Cut Off
BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

IB ACIO Salary
IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

IMPORTANT EXAMS

Terms & Conditions
Return & Refund Policy
Privacy Policy

Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
Sign in / Join

Article 21A
Constitution of India

Article 21A of the Indian Constitution

This article has been written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article provides a detailed analysis of Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which provides for free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a fundamental right.

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar .

Table of Contents

Introduction

The essence of every country lies in education, and without it, the country fails to survive. As a result, the cornerstone of the country is education. It is crucial for the overall growth and effective operation of a democracy. Education helps people become more skilled and more likeable, and as they grow, so does the country. It aims to achieve a wide range of goals ranging from employment to that of human resource development, general improvement, and bringing about much-needed social environment change. It provides residents of a nation with personal freedom and empowerment, thereby contributing to the development of an independent individual. It is regarded as the societal cornerstone that supports political stability, social progress, and economic prosperity. After food, clothing, and shelter a person’s fourth essential necessity is education. It is the foundation upon which society is built. Social justice and equality are made possible only by means of education. Article 21A of the Indian Constitution , which was inserted into the Constitution by means of the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 , mandates every state to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years, thereby declaring education as a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution . This amendment is a major milestone in the country’s aim to achieve ‘Education for All’. The government stated this step as ‘The dawn of the second revolution in the chapter of citizens rights’. This article explores this provision with respect to society, the judiciary, and other provisions of the Constitution in general.

Right to Education and its underlying history

Without some knowledge of the historical causes of the denial of the right and the constitutional response thereto, it is impossible to comprehend the significance of the Right to Education in India. When India gained independence from the British in 1947, the Constitution’s framers had to deal with the reality of the population that was predominantly illiterate and profoundly impoverished.

As originally enacted, Article 45 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, obliged the State to make every effort to provide free and compulsory education to every child until they complete the age of fourteen years, within ten years from the commencement of the Constitution. The Constitution stipulates that even while the Directive Principles of State Policy are not “enforceable in the court of law,” the State is nonetheless required to use them when enacting legislation since “the principles therein put out are nonetheless important in the governing of the country.” Additionally, Article 45 was the only Directive Principle with a deadline for completion, which shows how highly the Constitution’s founders valued this principle.
There can be little debate about the abject failure of the endeavour to provide universal access to education in the initial decades following independence. The overall literacy rate was a modest 65 percent as of 2001. In terms of primary education, from 2003–2004 to 2004–2005, more than 10% of students enrolled in Grades I–V, left school before completing the program. For the first time ever , according to census data, the number of illiterate Indians fell from 329 million in 1991 to 304 million in 2001.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that, like any other democracy, the democratic arms of the Indian government engaged in self-reflection and self-correction as a result of the failure of sheer scale mentioned above. The amount that the Central Government allocates for education has been rising over time, albeit slowly and erratically. For the first time in 1955–1956 , spending on education exceeded 1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and it remained in this range until 1979. The constitutional amendment that granted the Central Government concurrent legislative authority to intervene in the area of education was a very significant milestone in 1976 . Although it hasn’t yet been accomplished, the government has set a self-imposed goal of spending 6% of the GDP on education.
It is obvious that in the past few years, there has been significant progress made toward the realisation of universal primary education. This is frequently credited to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan [National Campaign for Education for All] , a national umbrella program launched in 2000 with the goal of achieving universal primary education. According to government figures , the overall number of children who are not enrolled in school has decreased from 42 million at the beginning of the tenth five-year plan (1997-2002) to 13 million in 2005.
A 2 percent cess on all significant central taxes, with the proceeds going particularly towards elementary education, is a practical step made toward resource mobilisation. It was decided to amend the Constitutional provisions to include the Right to Education as a fundamental right. In addition to this, education was slowly gaining momentum in terms of budgetary allocations and program execution.
Ultimately, Article 21A, a fundamental right that is subject to judicial review, was added as a result of the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002. One of the aspects of this amendment, which is the exclusion of early childhood care and education (for children younger than six years old) from the scope of the justifiable right, attracted a substantial amount of criticism. It is crucial to recognise that there was no mistake on the side of Parliament in this. The fact that the right to primary education is now an absolute right while the state still has some latitude in terms of its obligation to provide early childhood care and education, shows that the Parliament’s intention was to move the goalposts in terms of enforceability.

It is crucial to keep in mind that the financial commitment the State needed to make in order to universalize primary education no longer seems wholly implausible. For instance, a government-appointed expert committee first calculated that it would cost 0.78 percent of GDP annually to implement universal primary education in the years prior to the inclusion of Article 21A. However, the government revised the expected yearly cost to 0.44 percent of the GDP at the time the constitutional amendment was proposed.

This financial demand appears doable given the government’s self-imposed aim to raise spending to 6% of GDP and the context of gradually increasing budgetary allocations for education. The protracted delay in implementing the fundamental right is especially concerning in light of these historical occurrences. Significant issues with constitutional law and democratic accountability with regard to the new fundamental right have been raised as well.

Human progress depends on education. Any nation’s future is dependent on the quality of its educational system. Even while the members of the Constituent Assembly understood the value of universal education, they were unable to guarantee it as a fundamental right because of a lack of funding, despite the fact that it was listed in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Indian judicial system attempted to include the right to education as a component of the Right to Life in the 1993 case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh . Through a constitutional amendment that was passed in 2002, the Indian Parliament also gave its future inhabitants the right to an education.

On several occasions, both the judiciary and the Parliament had the chance to clearly explain the nature of this newly created fundamental right, particularly in light of the possibility that it might conflict with the fundamental right of minorities that already exists to create and run educational institutions of their choosing. There were a few crucial questions that needed to be addressed. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in the afore-mentioned case to include the Right to Education in the purview of Article 21 and the insertion of this new right alongside the Right to Life has given the former any precedence over other related rights, remains an unanswered question.

Right to Education under the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution has several provisions and schedules that protect children’s interests in education. There are various articles and guiding concepts in the Indian Constitution that protect and mandate the provision of education for its citizens. The Sergeant Commission , the last British education commission, predicted that universal education would be available in 40 years, or by 1985. The 42nd Amendment of 1976 to the Indian Constitution, made education a concurrent issue in order to expand basic education facilities, especially in underdeveloped areas thereby making education accessible to every individual by means of delivering it freely and mandatorily with priority for primary education.

Initially left out of the Constitution’s list of fundamental rights, the Right to Education was added as a Directive Principle under Article 45, which mandated the State to make efforts to offer all children free and compulsory education until the age of 14. This was done within the first ten years of the Constitution’s coming into effect. Article 45’s directive covers all levels of education up to and including the age of 14 and is not just limited to elementary school.

As a result, this age group of children should have had free access to education. The Supreme Court implied the ‘Right to Education’ during this time from other constitutional provisions such as Articles 21, 24 , 30(1) , 39(e) , and 39(f) , in its decision-making concerning issues over the Right to Education. The Court has time and again highlighted that the state can fulfil its moral commitment under Article 45 to “provide for free and compulsory education for children” through government-run and aided schools, and that Article 45 does not mandate that this obligation be fulfilled at the expense of minority populations.

On August 4, 2009, the Indian Parliament passed the Right to Education Act, 2009 , popularly known as the RTE Act, 2009. Article 21A of the Indian Constitution explains the necessity of free and mandatory education for children aged 6 to 14 in India. With the implementation of this Act on April 1, 2010, India joined the list of 135 nations that have made education a fundamental right for all children. It establishes basic standards for primary schools, outlaws the operation of unrecognised institutions, and opposes admissions fees and kid interviews during admission to government-aided schools.

Through routine surveys, the Right to Education Act keeps an eye on every neighbourhood and identifies children who should have access to education but have not been provided with it. In India, there have long been significant educational issues at the national level as well as in the states. The RTE of 2009 outlines the tasks and obligations of the Central Government, each state, and all local governments in order to fulfil any gaps in the nation’s educational system.

List of constitutional provisions promoting education as a right

Article 21A: The new Article 21A, which was inserted into the Indian Constitution by means of the 86th Constitutional Amendment, states that “the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 through a law that it may determine.” In 2009, the Right to Education Act was passed in light of Article 21A.
Article 15: Discrimination based on grounds of religion, ethnicity, caste, sex, or place of birth is forbidden by Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. Article 15(3) , however, says that nothing in this clause prevents the state from adopting any specific measures for women and children.
Article 38: Any social order that promotes the welfare of the people is secured by Article 38 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 45: Article 45 of the Indian Constitution endeavours to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.
Article 29(2): Article 29(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that no citizen shall be denied entrance to any state-maintained educational institution or be denied financial help from state funds on the basis of their religion, race, caste, language, or any combination of these.
Article 30: Minority linguistic and religious groups are protected by Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. They have the right to create and run any institution they want.

86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 adds three specific provisions to the Constitution to make it easier to understand that children between the ages of 6 and 14 have a fundamental right to free and compulsory education. This amendment was made with the intention of protecting citizens’ rights to education and recognising India’s educational challenges.

Every child has the right to a full-time elementary education of adequate and equitable quality in a formal school that complies with certain fundamental norms and standards, thanks to the addition of Article 21A in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The language of Article 45 went through modification to Article 45 as it was replaced with the statement that the “State shall work to ensure early childhood care and free and mandatory education for all children up to the age of six” .
The addition of a new clause to Article 51 A makes it explicitly mandatory for parents or guardians to provide opportunities for their children between the ages of 6 and 14 to receive an education [Article 51A (k)].

Reasons behind the enactment of the Right To Education Act, 2009

The reasons behind the enactment of the Right to Education Act, 2009 have been provided hereunder:

1950: Article 45 of the Indian Constitution lists it as one of the Directive Principles of State Polices.
1968: Dr. Kothari was put in charge of the First National Commission for Education , which submitted its reports concerning education as a right.
1976: The Constitution was amended to make education a concurrent issue that falls under both Central and state jurisdiction (42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution).
1986: The Common School System (CSS) was supported by the National Policy on Education (NPE), which was developed but not put into practice.
1993: The Right to Education was recognised as a fundamental right that followed the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993).
2002: Article 21A was added to the Constitution as part of the 86th Amendment, which also altered Article 45 and added a new basic responsibility under Article 51A(k).
2005: The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee report , which was formed to design the Right to Education Bill, had been submitted.
2009: The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into the picture.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

To give effect to Article 21A of the Constitution, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, was passed. It said that the state would provide free and mandatory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14 years old, incorporating the right to primary education. In 2008, six years after the Indian Constitution underwent an amendment (86th Amendment, 2002), the Cabinet approved the Right to Education Bill. The Cabinet adopted the measure on July 2, 2009. The bill was approved by both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on July 20, 2009, and August 4, 2009, respectively. The Act was notified as legislation on September 3, 2009, after receiving the President’s approval. With the exception of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the law took effect on 1st April 2010 throughout the nation. The Act provides for the following:

Every child between the ages of 6 and 14 has a fundamental right to free, obligatory education in schools up to the completion of elementary education.
Children who have either quit school or have not shown up at any school will be enrolled in the schools, and no school will be able to refuse to accept them.
In order to admit pupils from economically disadvantaged and weaker sections of society to class one, private and independent educational institutions must set aside 25% of their seats.
A child’s age must be established for admission to a school based on a certificate issued in accordance with the terms of the birth, death, and Marriage Registration Act of 1856 or on the basis of any other documents that may be required.
The Act’s implementation will be supervised by the state commission and the National Commission for the Protection of Children’s Rights (NCPCR).
School management committees of 75% of parents and guardians are required to oversee all schools, with the exception of private unaided institutions.
The mother tongue of the child will be used as the instruction medium, and a thorough and ongoing system of performance evaluation will be used.
A number of teachers for classes 1st to 5th:
Admitted children (up to 60): The number of teachers required is 2.
Children between (61-90): The number of teachers required is 3.
Children between (91-120): 4 teachers are required.
Above 150 children: 5 teachers + 1 head teacher.
The ratio of financial responsibilities between the Central Government and each state will be 55:45. For the northeastern state, it will be 90:10.
Building:
At least one classroom for every teacher and one office-cum-store-cum-head teacher’s room.
Separate toilets for girls and boys.
A kitchen where a mid-day meal is prepared.
One playground.
Safe and adequate drinking water facility.
A minimum number of working days:
200 working days for 1-5th class.
220 working days for 6-8th class.
Instructional hours:
800 Instructional hours per academic year for the 1st-5th class.
1000 Instructional hours per academic year for the 6th-8th class.
The Act mandates the presence of libraries in each school, providing newspapers, magazines & books.
According to the RTE Act, children who live within “the prescribed area or borders of neighbourhood” should have access to primary schools:
Primary school within 1km.
Elementary schools within 3km.
The Act establishes the disabled population’s Right to Education up to the age of 18.
The Act prohibits both physical and psychological abuse, procedures for screening youngsters who are being admitted, capitation costs, teachers providing private instruction and operating schools without authorisation.

Features of the Right to Education Act, 2009

Compulsory and free education for all.

In India, the government is required to provide free and required primary education to each and every child, up to class 8, in a neighbourhood school within a 1 km radius. No child is required to pay any fees or other costs that would keep them from pursuing and finishing their elementary education. In order to lessen the financial burden of school expenses, free education also involves the distribution of textbooks, uniforms, stationery items, and special educational materials for students with disabilities.

Special provisions for special cases

According to the RTE Act, a child who is not enrolled in school must be accepted into a class for their age and get additional instruction to help them catch up to age-appropriate learning levels.

The benchmark mandate

The RTE Act establishes guidelines and requirements for classrooms, boys’ and girls’ restrooms, drinking water facilities, the number of school days, and working hours for teachers, among other things. This collection of requirements must be followed by each and every elementary school in India (primary + middle school) in order to uphold the minimum standards required under the Right to Education Act.

Quantity and quality of teachers

The RTE Act ensures that the necessary pupil-teacher ratio is maintained in every school without any urban-rural imbalance at all, allowing for the sensible deployment of teachers. Additionally, it requires the hiring of teachers who have the necessary academic and professional training.

Zero tolerance against discrimination and harassment

The RTE Act of 2009 outlaws all forms of corporal punishment and psychological abuse, as well as discrimination based on gender, caste, class, and religion, as well as capitation fees, private tutoring facilities, and the operation of unrecognized schools. Less than 10% of schools nationwide, according to the Right to Education (RTE) Forum’s Stocktaking Report, 2014 adhere to all of the requirements of the Right to Education Act. Even if the Right to Education Act of 2009 brought about a lot of advances, worries about the privatisation of education still exist. Inequalities in education have persisted for a long time in India. Although the Right to Education Act represents the first step toward an inclusive education system in India, its successful implementation still presents difficulties.

Improving learning outcomes to minimise detention

No child is allowed to be held back or expelled from school until Class 8, as per the provisions of the Right to Education Act. In order to guarantee learning results that are acceptable for each grade in schools, the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system was created in 2009 under the Right to Education Act. This approach was established in order to examine every area of the child while they were in school, allowing gaps to be found and addressed as soon as possible.

Monitoring compliance with RTE norms

School Management Committees (SMCs) are essential for enhancing governance and participatory democracy in primary education. All schools covered under the Right to Education Act of 2009 are required to form a School Management Committee made up of the principal, a local elected official, parents, and other community members. The committees have been given the authority to establish a school development plan and monitor how the schools are operating.

Ensuring all-round development of children

The Right to Education Act of 2009 calls for the creation of a curriculum that would guarantee each child’s overall development. Develop a child’s knowledge, abilities, and potential as a person.

Right to Education Act is justiciable

The Right to Education Act of 2009 is legally enforceable, and it is supported by a Grievance Redressal (GR) framework that enables anyone to take legal action against violations of its provisions. Oxfam India and JOSH filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2011 under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to ensure that all schools adhere to this requirement. All public authorities are required to share information with individuals about how they operate under Section 4 of the RTI Act, which is a proactive disclosure section. Since public authorities include schools, Section 4 compliance was required.

Creating inclusive spaces for all

All private schools must set aside 25% of their seats for children from socially and economically disadvantaged areas, according to the Right to Education Act of 2009. The Act’s clause promoting social inclusion aims to create a more equitable and just society.

The conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution

Articles 21A and 30(1) are both essentially about the Right to Education, although they take different approaches to that right. Every child has the right to the former as an individual whereas minorities only have the latter as a collective right. It is important to determine where the two pieces are complementary to one another, where they are competing with one another or contradicting one another, and to what extent.

In cases like Re Kerala Education Bill (1958), Saint Xavier College v. State of Gujarat (1974), Saint Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1991), T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Supreme Court has discussed the nature of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) on numerous occasions.

In Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014), the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court focused only on the issue of whether aided or unaided minority educational institutions are required to provide ‘free and compulsory education’ to ‘all,’ i.e., free education to 25% of the students in the nation. However, every time the issue was only related to the extent to which various government regulations may penetrate into the right to ‘administer’ minority educational institutions. However, the right to ‘create’ minority educational institutions was not addressed. How minority groups can create educational institutions has never received the amount of attention it deserves.

Every child in India, regardless of caste, class, creed, or religion, has the right to a primary education under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. Each child has a right that cannot be waived since the idea of waiver does not often apply to fundamental rights. However, because minor children between the ages of 6 and 14 are the focus of Article 21A, the State has an even stronger obligation to uphold children’s Right to an Education. The type of education guaranteed by Article 21A is elementary-level fundamental education and is the most significant feature of the Act of 2009 as well. It is not intended to be a religious or specialised education of any type.

The Supreme Court stipulated i n Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) that Article 30(1) states and means that linguistic and religious minorities should be allowed to open educational institutions of their choice. The disciplines that can be taught in these educational facilities are not constrained in any way. Due to the fact that minorities will typically want to raise their children effectively, qualify them for higher education, and send them into the world with the intellectual skills necessary to enter the public sector, the educational institutions of their choice will inevitably include secular general educational institutions as well. In other words, the Article leaves it up to the minorities to choose educational institutions that will serve both ends, namely, the preservation of their religion, language, or culture, as well as the end of providing their children with a complete high-quality general education.

The next thing to keep in mind is that the Article explicitly grants two rights to all minorities, regardless of whether they are based on language or religion, namely, the right to create and the right to run educational institutions of their choice. It is abundantly obvious that the Constitution contains no specific limitations, but the legal interpretation of the document has not yet produced a binding ruling requiring minorities to establish institutions that might fulfil both objectives.

The Supreme Court made (2002) the assumption that most minorities would want their children to have both religion and modern education in order to raise respectable citizens. However, their comments fell out of line with reputable advice. This is the reason why the Supreme Court’s directions have not been put into practice at the local level.

It is clear that up until recently, Madrassahs were regarded as educational institutions in Maharashtra by the Maharashtra government’s order designating “Madrassahs not teaching conventional courses’’ as non-schools. Many other states, including West Bengal, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, are experiencing a similar predicament. Article 21A’s goal of ensuring that children receive basic education is violated by the state’s recognition of such educational facilities as schools. Every child has the right to get a fundamental education for at least 12 years to provide the groundwork for their personality and intelligence.

Numerous Islamic sects in India are operating these Madrassahs, which offer both secular education and religious instruction to students from all backgrounds. However, certain Islamic religious groups in India claim that Madrassahs are closed to students from other groups because they are only intended to produce Islamic religious experts. These organisations receive financial assistance from the state as a result of their position as minority-run educational institutions. Article 29(2) of the Indian Constitution states that no citizen of India may be denied entrance to educational institutions managed by the state or that receive funding from the state, and such minority schools, therefore, are obviously operating in contravention of this provision.

The Supreme Court ruled in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India in 2014 that the Right to Education Act of 2009 cannot force minority educational institutions to admit students from other communities in order to uphold the state’s goal of providing ‘free’ and ‘compelled’ education to ‘all.’ The Court, however, reaffirmed that the state can use regulatory measures to affect all educational institutions, including aided and unaided minority educational institutions. In Pramati’s case , the Supreme Court upheld its earlier rulings stating that institutions providing aided or unaided minority education can be subject to regulatory measures required to designate such an institution as an “educational institution”.

The Supreme Court’s views, which are summarised above, make it quite evident that the rights granted to religious minorities by Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution are not unqualified. The fundamental and guiding ideals of our Constitution, such as equality and secularism, govern this right. Therefore, such regulatory measures are constitutionally permissible if they are implemented in schools that are associated with all religions in order to check the quality of religious instruction that is to be offered to the pupils. In this approach, it is possible to harmoniously interpret both the individual rights of children and the collective rights of the minority population, which may be advantageous for the entire nation. Thus, institutions of all religions that only offer religious instruction to children younger than 14 years of age, should be outlawed outright since they are violating Article 21A’s guarantee that children have the right to basic education.

Need to support education for girls in India

According to a thorough investigation of the human capital theory , education significantly affects the productivity of the economy by raising factor production per worker. Plans for long-term economic development are centred on education and the development of human resources. Girls who feel unsafe and insecure also stop attending school. Boys attend school in the afternoon after girls do in the morning. Senior students frequently say that the boys follow them home after school while they are being teased. Due to the arousal of several complaints surrounding such events, police officers were appointed for patrolling, when the girls got out of school. However, as soon as there were fewer police officers, the boys kept harassing the girls. Because their parents thought it was no longer safe to send their daughters to school, many girls dropped out eventually. The issue still exists despite repeated reports to the police and SMC members.

A well-educated woman can give her children a better lifestyle and access to better healthcare by realising the value of education for future generations. In addition, educating girls will significantly lower the rates of infant and maternal mortality, child marriages, and domestic and sexual abuse in households. A girl with higher education is also more likely to take part in political debates, meetings, and decision-making that results in the creation of a more democratic and representative government.

New standards for the health, cleanliness, security and safety of kids in both private and public schools have been released by the NCPCR. The new recommendations stress that girls need to learn about menstrual hygiene and receive help so they don’t skip class. Additionally, they state that schools must have a zero-tolerance policy for any issue involving child sexual abuse and that lawbreakers will face harsh punishment.

Does Article 21A guarantee the Right to Education in mother tongue

The Rajasthan High Court in a landmark decision of School Development Management v. State of Rajasthan (2022) while contemplating the Right to Free and Primary Education, observed that Article 21A of the Constitution does not “ensure” the right to obtain education in one’s “mother tongue or home language.” However, a single judge bench led by Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the Rajasthan government’s decision to convert Shri Hari Singh Government Senior Secondary School in Peelwa, Jodhpur district, to an English medium school in September 2021 is void because it violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution which guarantees the Freedom of Speech and Expression. The School Development Management Committee (SDMC) and the parents of the school’s children had petitioned before the Rajasthan High Court, which rendered its decision thereafter.

Facts of the case

It was argued before the Court that changing the educational medium in the middle of a session violated students’ fundamental rights and was against the Constitution. The parents insisted that they opposed “full conversion of the present institution,” which was thinking of keeping only English as the language of instruction. They claimed that the sudden change would force students to enrol in other schools during the academic session, which would have an impact on their academic performance.

The Rajasthan State Government insisted that pupils may simply enrol in the various government institutions offering Hindi as a second language nearby. The administration argued that such a decision was acceptable by citing the policy choice of one English-medium school in a community with a population of more than 5,000 people. However, after reviewing the relevant constitutional provisions, the High Court dismissed the argument.

However, the petitioners’ argument that Article 21A protects the right to obtain an education in Hindi was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court. The Court cited a 2014 Supreme Court decision ( State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary and Secondary Schools & Ors (2022)) that had taken a similar tack in holding that the wording of the article is not absolute and permits the state to choose the medium of instruction ‘by law’. According to what has been granted under Article 21A of the Constitution, “no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be trained in a particular language or the mother tongue solely,” is what the Court observed in the present case.

Decision and analysis by the Rajasthan High Court

The Right to Education is a part and parcel of Article 19(1) (a), which guarantees the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and the Court acknowledged that it could not be said that it is not protected by any of the fundamental rights. The bench then looked at the limitations imposed by Article 19(2) , concluding that the State government’s decision in this matter, which was solely administrative, does not constitute a “reasonable restriction” as defined by Article 19(2).
According to the Court, clause (2) may only be used “in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, decency or morality, or involving contempt of court, defamation, or instigation of a crime.” Thus, the state government’s decision could not whittle down a child’s right to receive an education in Hindi under Article 19 (1)(a).
The Court also stated that it was against the law to “scoop out 601 kids with one stroke of the pen under the confidence that they would be accommodated at neighbouring schools.” The state government’s decision would also be in violation of Article 14 , which guarantees the Right to Equality, as it was made without using any evidence or comprehensible standards. The Court also pointed out that the Concurrent List of the Constitution, which contains subject matters on which both the Centre and the state have the authority to legislate, encompassed education.
According to the Right to Education Act of 2009, “the medium of teaching shall, to the extent practical, be in the mother tongue or the home language.” Justice Mehta stated that in light of this, “ English as a language of instruction cannot be imposed on a child by state law, much less by a policy or administrative decision, as in the instance at hand .”

He added that such a change would also be in violation of the RTI Act’s rules and the National Education Policy 2020 . The SDMC held that the school may proceed with the transition in the following academic session provided a majority of the SDMC members approved of such a move, despite the fact that the policy decision itself was not contested and the SDMC had supported the decision in principle.

The Court denied the petition, describing the conversion to an English-medium school in the middle of the academic year as “dehors the power of the State” which means it is outside the power of the state.

The Indian judiciary and Article 21A of the Indian Constitution

The most important investment in human growth is education, which is also a tool for creating an equitable and just society and for fostering economic prosperity. The government has also established a number of national institutions for the promotion and defence of the citizens’ Right to Education. The dynamic process of education begins at birth. The foundation of socioeconomic progress and the mirror of society is education.

The foundational component of a successful democratic society and governance is education. It supplies the nation with a new vision and direction in order to eradicate the ills of society. Both a fundamental and human right, education encourages respect for basic freedoms alongside peace. Education is the primary factor in the development of human resources since it improves the skills, effectiveness, productivity, and general standard of living of those who get it. In light of this, universalising elementary education makes it necessary for the state to provide free and required education to all children aged 6 to14.

The right to higher education is not specifically mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue in a number of Public Interest Litigation cases that have arisen in recent years. Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) and Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) are two of the most significant rulings concerning the right to education, that find its discussion hereunder. Despite the fact that Article 21A is still relatively new, there is already some limited court commentary on its scope and significance.

It is welcome to not search for a detailed analysis of the below-mentioned case, but instead a summarised version of the ratio of the case for understanding the application of Article 21A.

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

In this instance, Miss Mohini Jain, a native of Meerut, applied for admission to the MBBS program at a private medical college in the state of Karnataka in the session commencing in 1991. The college administration required her to submit Rs. 60000 as the first year’s tuition fee as well as a bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to the charge for the following year. The management declined to admit Miss Jain to the medical college after hearing from her father that the requested sum was beyond his financial capabilities. The administration allegedly wanted an additional fee of Rs 450000/-, according to Miss Jain, who testified in Court, but the management had denied such a claim.

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that even though the Right to Education as such has not been protected by the Constitution as a fundamental right, it is obvious from the Preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution that the state was intended to provide education for its citizens. Additionally, they ruled that private educational institutions’ collection of capitation fees violated the Right to Education that is implied by the Rights to life, human dignity, and equal protection under the law.

Unni Krishnan, J.P & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

The case challenged the constitutionality of state regulations governing capitation fees levied by some private professional educational institutes.

Through petitions made by private educational institutions to contest state laws, the case is given substance. The states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra created this state legislation to control the capitation fee amounts. The laws stated that any additional fees received by management employees would be regarded as capitation fees. The Supreme Court has observed that it would be the responsibility of the state to offer the facilities and opportunities required by Article 39(e) and (f) of the Constitution and to avoid the exploitation of their infancy owing to destitution and squalor.

According to the Supreme Court, when read in connection with the Directive Principles particularly focusing on education, the fundamental Right to Life (Article 21) implies the right to a minimum level of education as well. The Court ruled that the scope of the right must be understood in light of the Directive Principles of State Policy, including Article 45, which mandates that the State must make every effort to provide free and mandatory education for all children under the age of 14.

The Court determined that Article 21 does not establish a fundamental Right to Education leading to a professional degree. However, it was decided that the 44 years after the Constitution’s enactment had effectively changed the non-enforceable right of children under 14 into a legal obligation, with respect to education. After turning fourteen, their Right to Education is restricted by the state’s economic capacity and level of development (as per Article 41 ).

The Court cited Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights when it stated that in order for the State to fulfil its duty to provide higher education, it must use all of its resources to the fullest extent possible in order to gradually realise each individual’s right to education.

In Unni Krishnan’s case, the Court disagreed with the ruling in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) that the Constitution guarantees the Right to Education at all levels. Following the Constitutional Bench’s ruling in Unni Krishnan, the Supreme Court declared that Article 45 has now been elevated to the status of a fundamental right in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1996).

The Court further ruled that a right need not be explicitly identified as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution in order to be treated as such by stating that “the provisions of Part III and Part IV are supplemental and complementary to each other.” The Court disagreed that the moral demands and aspirations expressed in Part IV are superior to the rights reflected in Part III’s provisions.

Nine years after this pronouncement, the State responded by adding Article 21A to the Constitution, which guarantees children between the ages of six and fourteen the fundamental Right to Education. Additionally, legislation mandating basic education has been adopted by a number of Indian states. However, because of a number of administrative and financial restrictions, socioeconomic and cultural reasons, and other factors, these laws “have not been enforced.” Therefore, there is no national law requiring children to attend primary school.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Others (2008)

The opinion of Justice Bhandari in the Ashoka Kumar Thakur case (2008), possibly the most important affirmative action case decided by the Supreme Court of India in the recent decade or more, serves as the most notable example of discussing the Right to Education. On the surface, Ashoka Kumar Thakur doesn’t seem to have much to do with elementary schooling. The main constitutional issue concerned was whether the constitutional guarantee of equality was violated by the reservation of seats in educational institutions for members of the Other Backward Classes (i.e., socially and educationally backward classes of Indian citizens).

The Petitioner’s wide and all-encompassing challenge to the legitimacy and rationale of the Government’s Education Policy, of which the subset of reservations was the particular cause of harm to them, appears to have provided the setting for the dicta on the Right to Basic Education. Justice Bhandari essentially concurred with the other judges in sustaining the contested affirmative action policies in his separate opinion in this case. In what he believed to be an inversion of constitutional principles, he was harshly critical of the government for placing higher education (and, in particular, affirmative action in higher education) ahead of basic education.

His opinion includes obiter dicta on Article 21A in this context. He planned for Article 21A to have two main components:

First, all children of the appropriate age must attend school, and
Second, the education they get must be of “quality.”

This is a foreshadowing sign that the Supreme Court may be inclined to rule that a minimum education guarantee of quality is necessary for fulfilling the constitutional duty when the issue inevitably arises in the context of concrete claims under Article 21A.

Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School (2008)

Laws or programs that blatantly obstruct the constitutional objective of universal primary education might be the subject of a constitutional challenge under Article 21A. Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School (2008) is a great illustration of this strategy that the Supreme Court of India noted. In this case, the Supreme Court was debating the practice of ordering school employees to hold elections during regular school hours. How to resolve the conflict between two competing constitutional priorities was how the Court itself characterised the problem.

It acknowledged the crucial significance of free and fair elections in the Indian context, as well as the Election Commission of India’s constitutional obligations in this regard. However, it ruled that this alternative constitutional objective could not take precedence over the fundamental right to free elementary education. The “deplorable status” of primary education in India was noted in this case. Taking the same into account, the Supreme Court had opined that only on holidays and other days when classes are not in session could teaching staff be deployed for election-related tasks. Thus, the deployment of teachers for the purpose of election tasks cannot take place on days they have duties in school to deliver education to the children.

It is interesting to note that Article 21 of the Constitution, which is at least textually interpreted as a negative procedural due process right defending life and personal liberty, was the main focus of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case.

Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and Others (2009)

In this ruling , the Supreme Court of India expanded the definition of the Right to Education to include the right to a safe learning environment, and it required schools to abide by the specific fire safety requirements that had been laid down in this judgment.

In response to the fire that engulfed Lord Krishna Middle School in the Kumbakonam District, this public interest legal petition was filed. With about 900 pupils, Lord Krishna Middle School was a private institution. A nearby kitchen fire spread to the school building’s thatched roof, which collapsed and killed 93 kids inside. The school was required by municipal building rules to be certified every two years, however, Lord Krishna Middle School was three years past due and had numerous significant code violations.

Justice Bhandari opined in the case of Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and Others (2009) that the liberal and inclusive interpretation given to other fundamental rights by the Supreme Court of India provided important direction for how Article 21A could be construed. The Court observed that more than “a teacher and a blackboard, or a classroom and a book” is needed to educate a child. Although Justice Bhandari acknowledged that the case at hand did not require (or possibly even permit) the Court to detail the full contours of Article 21A, he believed it was justified to conclude that where clearly unsafe structures were employed to house schools, this could not be construed as constituting compliance with the mandate of Article 21A.

While States have made an effort to develop and adhere to school building rules, the Supreme Court emphasised that not enough has been done. The Supreme Court established basic fire safety requirements for schools in accordance with its duties under Article 21A of the Constitution safeguarding children’s fundamental Right to a Free and Compulsory Education.

Conclusion

One of the most important pieces of legislation in Indian history to ensure that children receive a basic education is the amendment to the fundamental right to education. The nation’s future lies with its children. Education is therefore a tool for introducing a child to cultural values, preparing him for future professional training, and assisting him in making a normal adjustment to his surroundings. A child today cannot succeed in life without education. The fundamental right to education applies to everyone equally. The most crucial component of higher education is therefore elementary education.

References

https://ili.ac.in/pdf/p4_vishal.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3874332
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342734746_right_to_education_with_special_reference_to_Article_21A

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

International Opportunities in Contract Drafting

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

A domed building stands against the blue sky and white clouds.

State laws threaten to erode academic freedom in US higher education

Associate Professor of Political Science, Trinity College

Disclosure statement

Isaac Kamola is the Director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom housed at the American Association of University Professors, which seeks to promote and defend academic freedom within higher education. The center is funded by the Mellon Foundation.

Trinity College provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Over the past few years, Republican state lawmakers have introduced more than 150 bills in 35 states that seek to curb academic freedom on campus. Twenty-one of these bills have been signed into law.

This legislation is detailed in a new white paper published by the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom , a project established by the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. Taken together, this legislative onslaught has undermined academic freedom and institutional autonomy in five distinct and overlapping ways.

1. Academic gag orders

As detailed in the report, state legislators introduced 99 academic gag orders during legislative sessions in 2021, 2022 and 2023. All of the 10 gag orders signed into law were done so by Republican governors. These bills assert that teaching about structural racism, gender identity or unvarnished accounts of American history harm students.

These gag orders are widely known as “divisive concept” or “anti-CRT” bills. CRT is an acronym for critical race theory, an academic framework that holds racism as deeply embedded in America’s legal and political systems. The partisan activists, such as Christopher Rufo , have used this term to generate a “ moral panic ” as part of a political response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.

For example, in April 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7, the “ Stop Woke Act .” The law defines a “divisive concept” as any of eight vague claims. They include claims that “Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker described this law as “ positively dystopian .” He noted that the government’s own lawyers admitted that the law would likely make any classroom discussion concerning the merits of affirmative action illegal. The vague wording of these gag orders has a chilling effect , leaving many faculty unsure about what they can and cannot legally discuss in the classroom.

2. Bans on DEI programs

The expansion of diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – services on campus was a major outcome of the racial justice protests in 2020. By 2023, however, the legislative backlash was in full swing. Forty bills restricting DEI efforts were introduced during the 2023 legislative cycle, with seven signed into law.

For example, Texas’ Senate Bill 17 drew directly from model policy language developed by Rufo and published by the Manhattan Institute , a right-wing think tank. SB 17 banned diversity statements and considerations in hiring. It also restricted campus diversity training and defunded campus DEI offices at Texas’ public universities.

As detailed in the AAUP white paper, only a handful of people testified in favor of SB 17, and almost all had stated or unstated affiliations with right-wing think tanks. In contrast, more than a hundred educators and citizens testified, or registered to testify, against the bill. Since its passage, Texas public universities have seen the closing of DEI programs and reduced campus services for students from minority populations. For example, after the Legislature accused the University of Texas-Austin of violating SB 17, the school was forced to shut down its DEI office. This involved laying off 40 employees .

3. Weakening tenure

Tenure was developed to shield faculty members from external political pressure. The protections of tenure make it possible for faculty to teach, research and speak publicly without fear of losing their jobs because their speech angers those in power. As detailed in the report, however, during the 2021, 2022 and 2023 legislative sessions, 20 bills were introduced, with two bills weakening tenure protections signed into law in Florida and another in Texas .

In Florida, for example, SB 7044 created a system of post-tenure review, empowering administrators to review tenured faculty every five years. The law further empowers administrators to dismiss those whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory. The law also requires that faculty post course content in a public and searchable database.

The AAUP criticized the law , noting that SB 7044 has “substantially weakened tenure in the Florida State University System and, if fully implemented as written,” would effectively “eliminate tenure protections.” Now even tenured faculty have reason to fear that what they teach might be construed as a “divisive concept,” as CRT, or as promoting DEI.

4. Mandating content

Lawmakers in several states have also passed legislation mandating viewpoint diversity, establishing new academic programs and centers to teach conservative content and shifting curricular decision-making away from the faculty.

For example, Florida’s Senate Bill 266 expanded the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida, without faculty input or oversight. The original proposal for the Hamilton Center stated that the center’s goal was to advance “ a conservative agenda ” within the curriculum.

SB 266 also gave the governing boards overseeing the university and college systems the authority to decide which classes count toward the core curriculum. This power was exercised in November 2023 after Manny Diaz, the education commissioner in Florida, requested that the boards remove an introduction to sociology course . He stated on social media that the discipline had been “ hijacked by left-wing activists and no longer serves its intended purpose as a general knowledge course for students.”

5. Weakening accreditation

The accreditation process is an obscure area of academic governance whereby colleges and universities regularly subject themselves to external peer review. Nonprofit accrediting agencies conduct these institutional performance reviews.

As detailed in the report, during the 2021-23 legislative cycles, six bills were introduced – three of them were passed into law – weakening the accreditation process, thereby making it easier for political interests to shape university policy.

For example, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, warned the school’s board of trustees that establishing the School of Civic Life and Leadership without faculty oversight and consultation raised serious concerns about institutional independence. The Legislature responded with Senate Bill 680 , which would require that North Carolina public universities choose a different accrediting agency each accreditation cycle. Eventually passed as part of the omnibus House Bill 8, this policy allows schools to “shop” for an accrediting agency less likely to object to such political interference in the curriculum.

These five overlapping and reinforcing attacks on academic freedom and institutional autonomy threaten to radically transform public higher education in ways that serve the partisan interests of those in power.

Academic freedom
US higher education
Education law
Higher ed attainment
Diversity, equity and inclusion

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Teaching & Learning Home
Becoming an Educator
Become a Teacher
California Literacy
Career Technical Education
Business & Marketing
Health Careers Education
Industrial & Technology Education
Standards & Framework
Work Experience Education (WEE)
Curriculum and Instruction Resources
Common Core State Standards
Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Materials
Distance Learning
Driver Education
Multi-Tiered System of Supports
Recommended Literature
School Libraries
Service-Learning
Specialized Media
Grade Spans
Early Education
P-3 Alignment
Middle Grades
High School
Postsecondary
Adult Education
Professional Learning

Administrators

Curriculum Areas
Professional Standards
Quality Schooling Framework
Social and Emotional Learning
Subject Areas
Computer Science
English Language Arts
History-Social Science
Mathematics
Physical Education
Visual & Performing Arts
World Languages
Testing & Accountability Home
Accountability
California School Dashboard and System of Support
Dashboard Alternative School Status (DASS)
Local Educational Agency Accountability Report Card
School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
State Accountability Report Card
Compliance Monitoring
District & School Interventions
Awards and Recognition
Academic Achievement Awards
California Distinguished Schools Program
California Teachers of the Year
Classified School Employees of the Year
California Gold Ribbon Schools
Assessment Information
CA Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)
CA Proficiency Program (CPP)
English Language Proficiency Assessments for CA (ELPAC)
Grade Two Diagnostic Assessment
High School Equivalency Tests (HSET)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Physical Fitness Testing (PFT)
Smarter Balanced Assessment System
Finance & Grants Home
Definitions, Instructions, & Procedures
Indirect Cost Rates (ICR)
Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS)
Allocations & Apportionments
Categorical Programs
Consolidated Application
Federal Cash Management
Local Control Funding Formula
Principal Apportionment
Available Funding
Funding Results
Projected Funding
Search CDE Funding
Outside Funding
Funding Tools & Materials
Finance & Grants Other Topics
Fiscal Oversight
Software & Forms
Data & Statistics Home
Accessing Educational Data
About CDE's Education Data
About DataQuest
Data Reports by Topic
Downloadable Data Files
Data Collections
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS)
Consolidated Application and Reporting System (CARS)
Cradle-to-Career Data System
Annual Financial Data
Certificated Salaries & Benefits
Current Expense of Education & Per-pupil Spending
Data Strategy
Data Privacy
Student Health & Support
Free and Reduced Price Meal Eligibility Data
Food Programs
Data Requests
School & District Information
California School Directory
Charter School Locator
County-District-School Administration
Private School Data
Public Schools and District Data Files
Regional Occupational Centers & Programs
School Performance
Postsecondary Preparation
Specialized Programs Home
Directory of Schools
Federal Grants Administration
Charter Schools
Contractor Information
Laws, Regulations, & Requirements
Program Overview
Educational Options
Independent Study
Open Enrollment
English Learners
Special Education
Administration & Support
Announcements & Current Issues
Data Collection & Reporting
Family Involvement & Partnerships
Quality Assurance Process
Services & Resources
CA Equity Performance and Improvement Program
Improving Academic Achievement
Schoolwide Programs
Statewide System of School Support (S4)
Specialized Programs Other Topics
American Indian
Gifted & Talented Education
Homeless Education
Migrant/International
Private Schools and Schooling at Home
State Special Schools
Learning Support Home
Attendance Improvement
School Attendance Review Boards
Expanded Learning
21st Century Community Learning Centers
After School Education & Safety Program
Expanded Learning Opportunities Program
Child Nutrition Information & Payment System (CNIPS)
Rates, Eligibility Scales, & Funding
School Nutrition
Parents/Family & Community
Clearinghouse for Multilingual Documents
School Disaster and Emergency Management
Learning Support Other Topics
Class Size Reduction
Education Technology
Educational Counseling
Mental Health
Safe Schools
School Facilities
Transportation
Youth Development
Professional Learning Home
Title II, Part A Resources and Guidance
Complaint Procedures

Uniform Complaint Procedures

Local control.

Many concerns are the responsibility of local educational agencies (LEAs), including the hiring and evaluation of staff, employee relations, selection/provision of textbooks and materials, pupil discipline, provision of core curricula subjects, homework policies and practices, and dress codes and school uniforms. Every county office of education, school district, and charter school governing board are required to have established local complaint policies that describe the procedures that must be followed to resolve complaints. Copies of complaint policies and procedures are available at county offices of education, district offices, or charter school offices. Many LEAs post their policies and procedures on their websites.

Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP)

Federal and state laws and regulations specify which programs and activities lie within the UCP scope.

See the sections below for UCP resources that address UCP programs and activities and meet all requirements regarding the UCP. These resources are for agency administrators, parents and guardians to explain the UCP in more detail, for instance the UCP Pamphlet and UCP contact information. Administrators may use these resources whether or not their county office of education, school district, or charter school has a scheduled Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) review.

Uniform Complaint Procedures Pamphlet (DOCX; Posted 17-Jul-2023) Guidance for students; employees; parents and guardians; district and school advisory committee members; private school officials and other interested parties for filing a UCP complaint in their LEA.

Uniform Complaint Procedures Contacts Contact information for various programs and services subject to the UCP.

Legislative Reports Summary of appeals of local educational agency (LEA) decisions issued under the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).

FAQs for Parents and Guardians

What is a complaint.

A Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) complaint is a written and signed statement alleging a violation of federal or state laws or regulations, which may include an allegation of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. A signature may be handwritten, typed (including in an email), or electronically generated. Some complaints may be filed anonymously. A complaint filed on behalf of an individual student may only be filed by that student or that student's duly authorized representative. If the complainant is unable to put the complaint in writing, due to conditions such as a disability or illiteracy, the local agency shall assist the complainant in the filing of the complaint. UCP complaints are filed with the district superintendent or their designee.

UCP Complaints

A complaint regarding the violation of specific federal and state programs that use categorical funds such as:

Accommodations for Pregnant and Parenting Pupils
After School Education and Safety
Agricultural Career Technical Education
Career Technical and Technical Education and Career Technical and Technical Training Programs
Child Care and Development Programs
Compensatory Education
Consolidated Categorical Aid Programs
Course Periods without Educational Content
Discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying against any protected group as identified under sections 200 and 220 and Section 11135 of the Government Code, including any actual or perceived characteristic as set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, or on the basis of a person’s association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution, as defined in Section 210.3, that is funded directly by, or that receives or benefits from, any state financial assistance.
Educational and graduation requirements for pupils in foster care, pupils who are homeless, pupils from military families, pupils formerly in Juvenile Court now enrolled in a school district, pupils who are migratory, and pupils participating in a newcomer program.
Every Student Succeeds Act
Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP)
Migrant Education
Physical Education Instructional Minutes
Reasonable Accommodations to a Lactating Pupil
Regional Occupational Centers and Programs
School Plans for Student Achievement
Schoolsite Councils
State Preschool
State Preschool Health and Safety Issues in LEAs Exempt from Licensing
And any other state or federal educational program the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) or designee deems appropriate.

Contacts in the California Department of Education (CDE) for programs and subjects covered under the UCP can be found on the Uniform Complaint Procedures Contacts web page.

Williams Complaints

A Williams Complaint, another type of UCP complaint, regards instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and safety of pupils, and teacher vacancy or misassignment and may be filed anonymously. Williams Complaints are filed with the principal, or their designee, of the school in which the complaint arises. Schools have complaint forms available for these types of complaints, but will not reject a complaint if the form is not used as long as the complaint is submitted in writing.

If a Williams Complaint requirement is allegedly not being met, a Williams Complaint form may be obtained at a school office or an agency/district office.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Complaints

The CDE's authority to investigate and the applicable complaint procedures are set forth in Section 8503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and the Uniform Complaint Procedures ( California Code of Regulations , Title 5 Section 4662 et seq.).

ESEA Section 8503 (a) states:

"(a) PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS.-The Secretary shall develop and implement written procedures for receiving , investigating, and resolving complaints from parents, teachers, or other individuals and organizations concerning violations of section 8501 by a State educational agency, local educational agency, educational service agency, consortium of those agencies, or entity. The individual or organization shall submit the complaint to the State educational agency for a written resolution by the State educational agency within 45 days."

How do I file a complaint?

For additional information please see the Complaints section on the California Department of Education FAQ web page.

What is an appeal?

An appeal is a written and signed request by the complainant to the California Department of Education (CDE) seeking review of a local educational agency (LEA) Investigation Report that was issued in a response to a properly-filed Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) complaint. A signature may be handwritten, typed (including in an email), or electronically-generated. If a complainant receives an LEA Investigation Report on a matter within the scope of the UCP and believes it is incorrect as a matter of fact or law, they have 30 calendar days to file a written appeal to the CDE. The appeal packet must contain a copy of the original complaint to the LEA and a copy of the LEA's Investigation Report. The complainant must specify and explain the basis for the appeal, including at least one of the following:

The LEA failed to follow its complaint procedures, and/or
Relative to the allegations of the complaint, the LEA Investigation Report lacks material findings of fact necessary to reach a conclusion of law, and/or
The material findings of fact in the LEA Investigation Report are not supported by substantial evidence, and/or
The legal conclusion in the LEA Investigation Report is inconsistent with the law, and/or
In a case in which the LEA found noncompliance, the corrective actions fail to provide a proper remedy.

Programs and Subjects Within UCP Scope

Contacts for programs and services covered under the UCP can be found on the Uniform Complaint Procedures Contacts web page.

For complaint and appeal processing information relating to the programs listed below:

Consolidated Categorical Programs and Unlawful Pupil Fees

Consolidated Categorical Aid Program Appeals Information on the filing, investigation, and resolution of an appeal regarding an alleged violation of federal or state law or regulations governing consolidated categorical aid programs.

Unlawful Pupil Fees Appeals Information on the filing, investigation, and resolution of a complaint regarding the noncompliance with California Education Code sections 49010–49013 regarding unlawful pupil fees.

For additional information regarding the UCP, Consolidated Categorical Aid Programs, and Unlawful Pupil Fees, please use the Appeal Assistance Form .

Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) Monitoring

The California Department of Education (CDE) monitors local educational agencies (LEAs) for compliance with state and federal laws related to the UCP through compliance monitoring.

Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) of the UCP

The UCP covers alleged violations by LEAs (school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools) and local public or private agencies which receive direct or indirect funding from the State to provide any school programs, activities, or related services that are subject to the UCP such as:

The Uniform Complaint Procedures Monitoring web page is primarily used for FPM reviews for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools that are scheduled for an FPM review; however, any agency may utilize the documents on this page for meeting the state and federal requirements regarding UCP.

Information about training resources on the UCP from the Categorical Programs Complaints Management Office can be found on the Uniform Complaint Procedures Training web page.

All LEAs and charter schools that opted in to the Williams Settlement requirements the Williams Complaint documents are for issues concerning deficiencies related to instructional materials, conditions of facilities that are not maintained in a clean or safe manner or in good repair, and/or teacher vacancy or misassignment.

What is a Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) complaint?

A UCP complaint is a written and signed statement alleging a violation of select federal or state laws, which may include an allegation of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. A signature may be handwritten, typed (including in an email) or electronically-generated. Complaints may be filed anonymously. A complaint filed on behalf of an individual student may only be filed by that student or that student's duly authorized representative. If the complainant is unable to put the complaint in writing, due to conditions such as a disability or illiteracy, the local agency shall assist the complainant in the filing of the complaint.

File a written complaint by following the steps described in your local educational agency's (LEA's) complaint procedures. To find out how and where to file complaints on different subjects please see the California Department of Education FAQ web page.

What areas are covered by the UCP?

Select federal and state laws governing educational programs are covered by the UCP. Please see the Uniform Complaint Procedures Pamphlet (DOCX; Posted 17-Jul-2023) for additional information. This version of the UCP pamphlet has up-to-date UCP information for the 2023-24 school year.

How do I file a complaint that does not fall under the UCP?

Consult your LEA's local complaint procedures, as LEAs have discretion for determining how non-UCP complaints are processed.

Where can I find my LEA's complaint procedures?

LEAs are required to annually provide notice to their students, employees, parents or guardians of their students, the district advisory committee, school advisory committees, appropriate private school officials, and other interested parties of their UCP. Many LEAs also include their complaint procedures on their websites or in a handbook they provide to students and their parents and guardians at the start of each new school year. You may also contact your school, district, or county office of education for more information. LEAs are required to make their complaint procedures available to you at no cost.

How much time does the LEA have to respond to my complaint?

The LEA must conduct and complete an investigation of the complaint and prepare a written decision to a UCP complaint within 60 calendar days of the date of receipt. This time period may be extended by written agreement of the complainant.

Am I required to give the LEA more time to respond to my complaint?

No. However, we encourage the local resolution of complaints and, at times, an extension is necessary in order for the LEA to do a thorough and complete investigation.

What fees are LEAs allowed to charge?

A pupil enrolled in a public school is not required to pay any fee, deposit, or other charge not specifically authorized by law. For supplemental guidance regarding summer school, third parties, and tuition fees, please see the Fiscal Management Advisory web page.

My school does not have enough textbooks, what do I do?

Complaints regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancy, or missasignment and school facilities are handled locally. You may file a Williams complaint about instructional materials with the principal at the school.

My school has unsafe facilities, what do I do?

Complaints regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancy, or missasignment and school facilities are handled locally. You may file a Williams complaint about facilities with the principal at the school.

My school has a teacher vacancy issue, what do I do?

Complaints regarding instructional materials, teacher vacancy, or missasignment and school facilities are handled locally. You may file a Williams complaint about teacher vacancy or misassignment with the principal at the school.

What do I do if I disagree with an LEA's decision regarding a complaint?

If you believe the LEA decision is incorrect as a matter of fact or law, or they failed to address all of your concerns, you may file an appeal within 30 calendar days to the CDE. In the appeal, you must specify the reason for the appeal and whether the LEA's facts are incorrect and/or the law is misapplied. The appeal packet must contain a copy of the original complaint to the LEA and a copy of the LEA's Investigation Report. The complainant must specify and explain the basis for the appeal, including at least one of the following:

Please see the Appeals section for more information.

What is the CDE's responsibility if it finds an LEA violated the law?

The CDE's responsibility is to ensure LEA compliance with select federal and state laws. If an LEA is found out of compliance, the CDE may require corrective action.

Uniform Complaint Procedures (this page)
Uniform Complaint Procedures Contacts
Uniform Complaint Procedures Monitoring

15 Business Schools With Lowest Acceptance Rates

These schools rejected more than 75% of full-time MBA applicants who wanted to enter in fall 2023, per U.S. News data.

15 B-Schools With Low Acceptance Rates

An aerial of the Knight Management Center at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Phil Knight founder of Nike donated the bulk of the funding. Solar panels by Solar City.

Getty Stock

The Stanford University Graduate School of Business in California accepted 8.42% of full-time MBA applicants for fall 2023.

Even supremely qualified MBA hopefuls sometimes struggle to stand out in the applicant pool at highly selective U.S. business schools, since these institutions tend to attract a greater number of strong candidates than they can admit.

The average fall 2023 acceptance rate among the 124 ranked full-time MBA programs that provided this data to U.S. News in an annual survey was roughly 49.7%. Meanwhile, the average rate among the 15 most selective full-time MBA programs that provided this data was about 18.5%.

The Stanford University Graduate School of Business in California once again had the lowest acceptance rate for full-time MBA applicants: 8.42%. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola University Maryland reported an acceptance rate of 100%.

Each of the 15 schools with the most daunting admission odds had an acceptance rate below 25%. Seven of them placed within the top 20 of the Best Business Schools rankings, while each of the remaining eight schools fell in the top 85 of the rankings.

Although B-schools that reject a significant proportion of applicants tend to perform well in the rankings, acceptance rates are a minor ranking factor. In the Best Business Schools ranking methodology , the percentage of prospective full-time MBA students admitted for entry in fall 2023 accounted for only 2% of a business school's overall score.

The 15 schools where getting in was hardest in fall 2023 are scattered across the U.S., led by California with four and New York with two. Nine of the 15 schools are private and six are public.

Overall, the total number of applications to U.S. business schools dropped nearly 5% in 2023, marking the second straight year for a decrease after a boost in 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council.

This trend is due partly to a decline in applications to highly selective programs, but the survey found that more programs reported growth in application numbers in 2023 than in 2022. Programs most likely to report growth in applications were from "moderately selective schools" where acceptance rates range from 43% to 65%, the survey found.

Below is a list of the 15 business schools that reported the lowest acceptance rates for full-time MBA applicants in fall 2023. Unranked schools, which did not meet certain criteria required by U.S. News to be numerically ranked, were not considered for this report.

Don't see your school in the top 15? Access the U.S. News Business School Compass to find admissions statistics, complete rankings and much more. School officials can access historical data and rankings, including of peer institutions, via U.S. News Academic Insights .

U.S. News surveyed 506 business programs in our survey conducted in 2023 and 2024. Schools self-reported myriad data regarding their academic programs and the makeup of their student body, among other areas. While U.S. News uses much of this survey data to rank schools for our annual Best Business Schools rankings, the data can also be useful when examined on a smaller scale. U.S. News will now produce lists of data, separate from the overall rankings, meant to provide students and parents a means to find which schools excel or have room to grow in specific areas that are important to them. While the data comes from the schools themselves, these lists are not related to, and have no influence over, U.S. News' rankings of Best Colleges , Best Graduate Schools or Best Online Programs . The acceptance rate data above is correct as of June 5, 2024.

Tags: MBAs , business school , education , students , graduate schools

Questions to Ask Ahead of Law School

Cole Claybourn May 31, 2024

Tips for Secondary Med School Essays

Cole Claybourn May 30, 2024

Ways Women Can Thrive in B-School

Anayat Durrani May 29, 2024

Study Away or Abroad in Law School

Gabriel Kuris May 28, 2024

A Guide to Executive MBA Degrees

Ilana Kowarski and Cole Claybourn May 24, 2024

How to Choose a Civil Rights Law School

Anayat Durrani May 22, 2024

Avoid Procrastinating in Medical School

Kathleen Franco, M.D., M.S. May 21, 2024

Good Law School Recommendation Letters

Gabriel Kuris May 20, 2024

Get Accepted to Multiple Top B-schools

Anayat Durrani May 16, 2024

Vanguard Says It Backed Exxon Board, but Cites Investor Rights Concerns

FILE PHOTO: The logo of ExxonMobil is seen during the LNG 2023 energy trade show in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 12, 2023. REUTERS/Chris Helgren/File Photo

By Ross Kerber

(Reuters) - Vanguard said its funds supported the election of Exxon's director nominees at its annual meeting last week, but the mutual fund giant cited lingering concerns about the energy company's lawsuit against climate activists.

All 12 of the company's directors were re-elected at the company's annual meeting on May 29 including Exxon Chairman Darren Woods and Lead Director Joseph Hooley. The two were opposed by environmental activists after Exxon refused to end its lawsuit against proponents who had put forward a climate-measure at the meeting, even after they dropped it.

Pennsylvania-based Vanguard cited Exxon's decision in a recent note posted on its website.

"While the company's decision to continue to pursue the lawsuit gives us some pause given the potential chilling effect on future shareholder proposals, we do not, at this time, see evidence that the (Exxon) board has overseen actions that have negatively impacted shareholder returns," Vanguard wrote.

A Vanguard spokesman declined further comment.

An Exxon representative said the proponent of the since-withdrawn resolution "has not conceded that their proposal violated SEC rules. This is the question at the heart of our lawsuit: to seek clarity on the SEC proxy rules ... and thereby foster an environment for open and meaningful shareholder dialogue."

(Reporting by Ross Kerber; Editing by Richard Chang)

Tags: funds , environment , United States

The Best Financial Tools for You

Credit Cards

Personal Loans

Comparative assessments and other editorial opinions are those of U.S. News and have not been previously reviewed, approved or endorsed by any other entities, such as banks, credit card issuers or travel companies. The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter to get investing advice, rankings and stock market news.

See a newsletter example .

Investments by Elon Musk and Tesla

Brian O'Connell June 5, 2024

9 of the Best REITs to Buy for 2024

Wayne Duggan June 5, 2024

9 of the Best Bond ETFs to Buy Now

Tony Dong June 5, 2024

8 Best Defense Stocks to Buy Now

Wayne Duggan June 4, 2024

7 Best Vanguard Funds to Buy and Hold

Tony Dong June 4, 2024

Can AI Pick Stocks?

Marc Guberti June 4, 2024

How Inflation Affects Investments

Rachel McVearry June 4, 2024

6 Best Cryptocurrencies to Buy

John Divine June 4, 2024

7 High-Yield Covered Call ETFs

Tony Dong June 3, 2024

Is Gold a Good Investment Right Now?

Rachel McVearry and Matt Whittaker June 3, 2024

6 of the Best AI ETFs to Buy Now

2024's 10 Best-Performing Stocks

Wayne Duggan June 3, 2024

Fidelity vs. Charles Schwab

Marc Guberti May 31, 2024

7 Best Oil and Gas Stocks to Buy in 2024

Matt Whittaker May 31, 2024

Testing Dave Ramsey's Investing Advice

Wayne Duggan May 31, 2024

7 of the Best Ways to Invest $5,000

Tony Dong May 31, 2024

9 Best Growth Stocks to Buy for 2024

Wayne Duggan May 30, 2024

5 of the Best Stocks to Buy Now

Ian Bezek May 30, 2024

Recovering From a Stock Market Loss

Tony Dong May 30, 2024

IMAGES

Uday Publishing House: RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT 2009 AWARENESS, ISSUES
(PDF) Right to Education Act 2009: Issues & Challenges
Right To Education Act
Right to Education Act-2009
Right To Education (Rte) Act
RTE Act : (Right to Education Act, 2009)

VIDEO

right to education act,2009 B.ED notes
Right to Education Act (RTE), 2009 (in hindi) || Article 21A ||
Right to Education Act 2009 Revision #Kendrapramukh Exam# केंद्रप्रमुख परीक्षा#Era Academy
RTE Act 2009 (शिक्षा का अधिकार) || Part 1 Top 11 One Liner questions||Right To Education DSSSB,CTET
Right to Education Act 2009
Right To Education Act-2009 (RTE)

COMMENTS

RTE Act : (Right to Education Act, 2009)
Irrespective of any differences, the RTE Act provides for all children between the age group of 6-14 years free and compulsory education. Post the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the Right to Education Act, 2009 applies to the whole of India w.e.f. 31.10.2019. Even though this Act extends to the whole of India, regarding the scope ...
PDF The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
An Act to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It shall extend to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Right to Education
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which represents the consequential legislation envisaged under Article 21-A, means that every child has a right to full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which satisfies certain essential norms and standards.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted on 4 August 2009, which describes the modalities of the importance of free and compulsory education for children between the age of 6 to 14 years in India under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. India became one of 135 countries to make education a ...
Right to Education Act: Universalisation or Entrenched Exclusion
On 26th August 2009, the Government of India enacted 'The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act' (hereafter, Right to Education [RTE] Act). The Act in Article 3(1), Chapter II makes a provision that 'every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood ...
Right to Education Act (RTE)
The Act is completely titled "the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act". It was passed by the Parliament in August 2009. It was passed by the Parliament in August 2009. When the Act came into force in 2010, India became one among 135 countries where education is a fundamental right of every child.
PDF Empowering Education: A Comprehensive Introduction To The Right To
access to quality education for all, regardless of socio-economic backgrounds. In the context of India, the Right to Education Act, 2009, emerges as a pivotal milestone in this journey towards an inclusive and equitable education system. Enacted on April 1, 2010, the Right to Education Act, commonly referred to as RTE Act
The Right to Education Act, 2009 in India after a decade: appraising
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the RTE Act, 2009) came into effect since 1st April 2010, pursuant to the 86th Amendment to the Constitution of India (2002), which promises elementary education as a fundamental right.
Rationalisation of Schools and Its Impact on Children's Right to
This closure/merger has been contested widely on the grounds that it might have a negative consequence for the marginalised children, who could break the age-old barriers and 'access' school education owing to the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The article, through a case study method in seven southern districts of Rajasthan exploring ...
Elementary School Education and the Right to Education Act, 2009
The Right to Education Act, 2009, has also allocated 25 per cent places in private schools for socially disadvantaged children. In the course of assessing the social effect of Right to Education Act, 2009, existing literature has been analysed. Although India has measured great strides in enlisting school enrolment, some problems exist.
The Right to Education Act: Trends in Enrollment, Test Scores, and
Article Information; Abstract The Right to Education (RTE) Act passed in 2009 guarantees access to free primary education to all children ages 6-14 in India. This paper investigates whether national trends in educational outcomes change around the time of this law using household surveys and administrative data.
Critical Analysis of Right to Education Act, 2009
The Right to Education Act or RTE Act, 2009 is a landmark legislation in India that makes education a fundamental right for all children between the ages of 6 and 14. This law came into force on 1st April 2010 and aims to provide free and compulsory education for all children in India. Some of the effects of the RTE law are listed below.
Right to education
The right to education is reflected in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. ... According to Indian constitution under 86th Amendment act 2002, There is right to free and compulsory education up to ...
Overview Of Right To Education Act, 2009 In Contemporary India
Right To Education Act, 2009. Article 21-A, which states that all children between the ages of six and fourteen have the fundamental right to free and compulsory education, was added to the Indian Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002. Every child has the right to a full-time elementary education of satisfactory ...
PDF Avinash Mehrotra v Union of India
Significance to the right to education The right to education became a fundamental right in the Indian onstitution in 2002 and Article 21A provides that: 'The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.' This decision
PDF Right to Education (RTE): A Critical Appraisal
Right to Education. The paper tries to bring out the meaning of much awaited Right to Education (RTE) 2009, act and tries to bring out the critical appraisal of the Act after three years since its passage. Keywords: Education, Right to Education Act, promises of the act, consistent political will and attention I. Introduction and Literature Review:
Right to Education
Feature of Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The RTE Act aims to provide primary education to all children aged 6 to 14 years. It enforces Education as a Fundamental Right (Article 21). The act mandates 25% reservation for disadvantaged sections of the society where disadvantaged groups include: SCs and STs. Socially Backward Class.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Right to
Every child between the ages of 6 to 14 years has the right to free and compulsory education. This is stated as per the 86th Constitution Amendment Act via Article 21A. The Right to Education Act seeks to give effect to this amendment. The government schools shall provide free education to all the children and the schools will be managed by ...
PDF Right to Education: a Critical Analysis of The Indian Approach
RTE Act: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 20. SCC: Supreme Court Cases 21. S. or Sec.: Section 22. S.A.C.C.S.: South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude ... The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Main Features of Right to Education Act Criticism raised against the RTE Act R.T.E. Amendment ...
Right to Education Act 2009, Article 21A, 86th Constitutional Amendment
The Right to Education Act, 2009, sometimes referred to as the RTE Act, was approved by the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2009. Indian children ages 6 to 14 must get free, compulsory education, as stated in Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. By putting this Act into effect on April 1, 2010, India became one of the 135 countries that have ...
PDF RIGHT TO EDUCATION: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE RIGHT OF ...
assessed using the 4A's which asserts that for education to be meaningful right; it must be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. The question is whether right to education is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable? This paper analytically evaluates right to education under RTE Act, 2009 in the light of 4A's framework.
Article 21A of the Indian Constitution
On August 4, 2009, the Indian Parliament passed the Right to Education Act, 2009, popularly known as the RTE Act, 2009. Article 21A of the Indian Constitution explains the necessity of free and mandatory education for children aged 6 to 14 in India. With the implementation of this Act on April 1, 2010, India joined the list of 135 nations that ...
PDF Right to education handbook
The Right to Education Initiative (RTE) is a global human rights organization focused exclusively on the right to education, established by the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education. Since 2000, it has been endeavouring to promote education as a human right, by conducting research
State laws threaten to erode academic freedom in US higher education
Taken together, this legislative onslaught has undermined academic freedom and institutional autonomy in five distinct and overlapping ways. 1. Academic gag orders. As detailed in the report ...
Uniform Complaint Procedures
A Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) complaint is a written and signed statement alleging a violation of federal or state laws or regulations, which may include an allegation of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. A signature may be handwritten, typed (including in an email), or electronically generated.
US Senate to Vote on Contraception Bill in Democratic Push on
The Right to Contraception Act, which would protect birth control access nationwide, is unlikely to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to pass in the chamber, where Democrats hold a narrow 51-49 ...
Questions to Ask Before Heading to Law School
Before heading to law school, prospective law students should reflect on their motivations and determine if they'd find a legal job fulfilling, experts say. This means asking questions that ...
10 Business Schools With the Lowest Acceptance Rates
Meanwhile, the average rate among the 15 most selective full-time MBA programs that provided this data was about 18.5%. The Stanford University Graduate School of Business in California once again ...
Vanguard Says It Backed Exxon Board, but Cites Investor Rights Concerns
Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The logo of ExxonMobil is seen during the LNG 2023 energy trade show in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 12, 2023.
Figures at a glance
How many refugees are there around the world? At least 108.4 million people around the world have been forced to flee their homes. Among them are nearly 35.3 million refugees, around 41 per cent of whom are under the age of 18.. There are also millions of stateless people, who have been denied a nationality and lack access to basic rights such as education, health care, employment and freedom ...

Ministry of Education, GoI

Right to Education

Follow us on:

Right to Education Act (RTE) - Indian Polity Notes

Right to Education Act

RTE Provisions

Significance of RTE

Criticism of RTE Act

UPSC Questions related to the Right to Education Act (RTE)

What is the age limit for RTE?

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

What is the importance of the right to education?

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

This website uses cookies.

The Right to Education Act: Trends in Enrollment, Test Scores, and School Quality

Additional Materials

JEL Classification

Overview Of Right To Education Act, 2009 In Contemporary India

RTE law excludes children with special needs (CWSN)

Ensure quality education

Law Article in India

Critical Analysis Of Right ...

Is The New Law On Election ...

How a Witness Should Depose...

Limitations Of Adverse Poss...

Understanding Juvenile Just...

Conundrum Surrounding GST O...

Law Articles

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

Facade of Social Media

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

Right to Education Act 2009, Article 21A, 86th Constitutional Amendment

Right to Education

Article 21A of Indian Constitution

Right to Education Background

Right to Education as Fundamental Rights

86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

Right To Education Act 2009

Right To Education Act 2009 Provisions

Right to Education UPSC

What is Article 21A to the Indian Constitution?

What is 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002?

What is Article 51 A (k)?

What is Article 45?

When Supreme Court recognised Right to Education as a Fundamental Rights?

Recent Posts

BPSC Exam 2024

IB ACIO Exam

CSIR SO ASO Exam

Study Material Categories

IMPORTANT EXAMS

Article 21A of the Indian Constitution

Introduction

Right to Education and its underlying history

Right to Education under the Indian Constitution

List of constitutional provisions promoting education as a right

86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

Reasons behind the enactment of the Right To Education Act, 2009

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Features of the Right to Education Act, 2009

Special provisions for special cases

The benchmark mandate

Quantity and quality of teachers

Zero tolerance against discrimination and harassment

Improving learning outcomes to minimise detention

Monitoring compliance with RTE norms

Ensuring all-round development of children

Right to Education Act is justiciable

Creating inclusive spaces for all

The conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution

Need to support education for girls in India

Does Article 21A guarantee the Right to Education in mother tongue

Facts of the case

Decision and analysis by the Rajasthan High Court

The Indian judiciary and Article 21A of the Indian Constitution

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

Unni Krishnan, J.P & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)