Rethinking Pramati: Balancing Minority Rights and Inclusive Education

Authored by Swayam Mundhra & Saksham Sharma, 4th-year law students at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

Supreme Court of India

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently questioned the blanket exemption granted to minority schools, both aided and unaided, under the Right to Education Act, 2009. A bench comprising Justice Datta and Justice Manmohan, while examining whether minority schools must enforce the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), observed that implementation of the RTE does not erode, let alone annihilate, the minority character under Article 30(1). This, however, being a two-judge bench, cannot overrule the five-judge judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India. In the earlier Pramati Judgement Court, it was affirmed that allowing reservations in private institutions under Article 15(5) did not violate Article 21. The Hon’ble Court took the view that forcing minority schools to implement the RTE mandate (especially the 25 percent quota under Section 12(1)(c)) would interfere with their right to manage and preserve their institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

While the intermixing and difference in character between the Right to Education Act and Article 30(1) has always been complex, the recent observations of the Honourable Supreme Court underline an important concern—that the broad protection extended in Pramati has, in effect, created a loophole which certain private schools may be exploiting by claiming minority status primarily to avoid their obligations under the RTE. This development warrants a closer and more critical examination. In light of this, this blog seeks to explore whether the Supreme Court should reexamine its decision in Pramati, with respect to whether minority institutions should be given a total exemption from the 2009 Right to Education Act’s framework.

History of the Right to Education Act, 2009

The Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, implemented Article 21A of the Constitution of India, which was the point at which the law escaped the historically lacking constitutional foundation for free and compulsory primary education among children 6 to 14 years of age. This historic law prescribes minimum standards, from teachers' qualifications to infrastructure set-up, with a chilling emphasis on ensuring inclusive and equitable access to education all over India. Specifically, Section 12(1)(c) requires that aided private schools are obligated to reserve 25% of their admissions quota for children from economically challenged backgrounds or the underprivileged, and the State shall fully reimburse expenses associated with the aforementioned students. But the Minority Private Institutions were exempted through Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012). The rationale in enacting this subsection was to ensure the inclusion of students from different socio-economic levels and to create the above schools as a collective platform in nurturing shared knowledge and social exposure.

But the shift towards greater inclusion produced opposition by minority institutions, who invoked Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Article 30(1) enshrines religious and linguistic minorities' rights to establish and manage educational institutions of their preference. A large number of stakeholders held the opinion that the implementation of quotas through Section 12(1)(c) in minority institutions would dilute their autonomy and culture, and hence, a constitutional contradiction would be created by diluting inclusive education through Article 21A and Article 30(1)'s minorities' rights. The end of this legal and ideological battle was heralded by the historic case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014). A five-judge Constitution Bench was involved in analysing the interaction among Article 21A, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution that allowed government-backed positive action in education in favour of socially and economically backward sections, and Article 30(1). Even as the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Right to Education (RTE) Act and its provisions, it allowed exceptions on behalf of both aided and unaided minority institutions from the coverage of the Act. The Court held that it would be inconsistent with Section 12(1)(c)'s application by itself to minority schools, since it could transform the fundamental nature of the schools, thus violating their constitutional protection of autonomy.

Consequently, even ostensibly minority-managed schools could avoid RTE responsibilities—an unintended effect, say critics, which created broad avenues for misuse. Numerous schools allegedly applied for minority status merely in order to avoid complying with the RTE Act. Therefore, the Pramati judgment created a considerable exception, from the universal extension of the RTE Act. Although the ruling upheld the entitlements of minority institutions, it simultaneously weakened the extent of inclusive educational mandates, thereby rekindling discussions regarding the optimal means to reconcile social justice objectives with constitutional liberties.

The Pitfalls of Blanket Exemptions

Although the exemption under Article 30(1) was intended to preserve and safeguard minority institutions, over the years, significant loopholes have come to light. Many schools admit a majority of students from other communities despite claiming to be minority-run. This enables them to circumvent the RTE Act's requirements without actually fulfilling the mission of a minority institution. According to a 2021 National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) study, only 8.7% of students in minority schools are from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, whereas nearly 62.5% of students are members of non-minority communities. These figures demonstrate how the exemption has frequently become a means of evading obligations under the RTE rather than protecting minority identity.

The Pramati ruling essentially excluded minority schools from the entire 25% reservation under Section 12(1)(c), which exacerbates the situation. This means that both aided and unaided minority schools were no longer bound to follow even the basic requirements, like ensuring teachers are properly qualified, providing adequate infrastructure, or meeting the minimum standards set to improve the quality of education. What was meant as a measure to uphold minority rights has, over time, turned into a situation where some schools function almost completely free from regulation, enjoying benefits without being held to the same benchmarks that every other school has to follow. This has naturally raised concerns about fairness, accountability, and whether the spirit of the RTE is being undermined. There also arises the concern of Article 29(2), which bars religious discrimination in aided schools, a point that Pramati left unaddressed while dealing with aided minority institutions.

Addressing the Gaps: Solutions Ahead

The above concerns highlight the gap left by the Pramati ruling; they also leave the door open for potential reforms. The challenge lies not in choosing between universal education under Article 21-A or minority educational rights under Article 30, but in finding a framework where both can mutually co-exist. The first step towards the same could be to restrict the blanket exemption to Section 12(1)(c) rather than all provisions of the act.. This would, however, allow the minority institutes to be exempted from the reserved 25 per cent entry level, but basic RTE standards, such as proper presentable qualified teachers, infrastructure, and minimum educational benchmarks, would still need to be adhered to. In short, quality standards will stay intact at the same time, preserving the autonomy of minority schools.

As far as Section 12(1)(c) is concerned, the government can adopt a middle path. One possible approach is to allow minority institutions to reserve 25 percent of their entry-level seats specifically for children from the same minority community who are socially and economically disadvantaged. This would preserve the cultural and linguistic character of such schools, in line with Article 30, while simultaneously upholding the spirit of Article 21-A by extending opportunities to those most in need within the minority itself. Another much-needed reform is tightening the way minority status is granted and monitored. Right now, getting recognition as a minority institution is mostly a one-time process, and once it’s given, there’s rarely any follow-up. This often opens the door for misuse. A better approach would be for the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) to carry out periodic reviews of these schools on a fixed timeline. These reviews could look at whether the majority of students actually come from the minority community, how well the institution is promoting and preserving the culture and ethos of that community, and whether its day-to-day functioning genuinely reflects the spirit of Article 30.  Lastly, more transparency is needed. The government could set up a single national portal where every recognised minority school has to disclose admissions, seat matrix, student intake, and compliance with basic norms. Making this data public would make things more accountable and reduce the misuse of the “minority” label to escape regulation.

Looking at Article 30 after RTE

The developing educational paradigm in India obliges us to rethink how we frame minority rights by way of Article 30, especially given the great promise that Article 21A demonstrates. Whereas Article 30 was meant to protect minority cultures and languages by bestowing upon them autonomy over their educational arrangements, so much has shifted from when, in 2009, the Right to Education Act was passed.

Today, it is impossible for us to consider minority institutions in isolation from our national objective of ensuring equitable and inclusive education. Rather than viewing Article 30 as an absolute exclusion from rules, perhaps it is time to view it more in terms of our constitution's ideals and evolving standards in education. This new perspective never deprives minority rights but positions them such that all have to ensure all children, irrespective of their origin, are able to have a good-quality education.

Judges and parliamentarians might also consider whether guarantees under Article 30 must apply to institutions that are no longer exclusively dedicated to securing rights for a minority. Additionally, thinking might change from "freedom from rules" considerations to "freedom with responsibility" ones, especially where public money or public interest is at stake.

This developing jurisprudential perspective may signal a shift in directions toward what will here be called a post-RTE conceptualisation of minority rights—an understanding that maintains diversity without relinquishing India's constitutional commitment to education for all. Such a reframing would not only correct abuses but also validate the foundational synergy between equality and liberty in India's educational system.

Conclusion

Bringing the discussion to a close, it is clear that the real question is not whether minority rights under Article 30 and the universal right to education under Article 21A can co-exist, but how to make that co-existence work in practice. Despite being designed to protect minority autonomy, the Pramati ruling ended up establishing significantly greater exemptions than were required, which allowed for misuse and undermined the broader spirit of RTE. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court reopen this debate, and rightly so, because what is before us is a need to rethink the actual balance rather than holding on to a scheme wherein certain flaws are glaringly evident from the outset. The approach has to be an equitable and accountable one. Minority institutions need to be—their independence needs to be ensured in the present scheme under the ambit of their cultural and educational identity, but this cannot mean that these institutions are given a free run, disregarding every basic norm of quality, trim transparency, or otherwise. Children coming from underprivileged backgrounds, whether in minorities or not, must not be left behind due to technical considerations relating to constitutional provisions. If proper reforms are implemented-whether in the form of periodic reviews of one's minority status, increased transparent admissions, or balanced consideration of Section 12(1)(c)-it is possible to uphold both sets of rights without compromising any. Ultimately, education cannot merely be treated as another matter of governmental policy but as a constitutional promise. To give this promise true meaning in India, we need a framework that respects diversity but does not permit a child to be denied any opportunity of learning. This middle path-the truly workable one-is not only feasible but also necessary.