अल्पसंख्यक संस्थानों में आरटीआई एक्ट के अस्तित्व पर 27/03/2025 की सुनवाई :
राहुल पांडे अविचल
दिनांक 27/03/2025 की सुनवाई में सर्वप्रथम वरिष्ठ वकील रोमी चाको ने अल्पसंख्यक विद्यालयों की तरफ से पक्ष रखा।
यह केस अनजुमन इशात ए तालीम ट्रस्ट बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य से संबंधित है, जिसमें विवाद का मुख्य मुद्दा यह है कि क्या RTE अधिनियम, 2009 के तहत जारी अधिसूचना, विशेष रूप से शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (TET) की अनिवार्यता, अल्पसंख्यक शैक्षणिक संस्थानों पर लागू होती है या नहीं।
वकील साहब की मुख्य दलीलें:
1. संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21A का प्रभाव – शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम (RTE Act) अनुच्छेद 21A के तहत लागू किया गया, लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) मामले में यह स्पष्ट किया गया कि अनुच्छेद 21A के तहत बनाया गया कोई भी कानून अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों (अनुच्छेद 30(1)) का उल्लंघन नहीं कर सकता।
2. RTE अधिनियम की सीमाएँ – Pramati के निर्णय में यह स्पष्ट किया गया कि यह अधिनियम अल्पसंख्यक संस्थानों, चाहे वे aided हों या unaided, पर लागू नहीं हो सकता। इस संदर्भ में, अधिनियम की धारा 12(1)(c) और अन्य संबंधित प्रावधान निष्प्रभावी हैं।
3. शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (TET) का प्रश्न – चूँकि RTE अधिनियम मुख्य रूप से नि:शुल्क और अनिवार्य शिक्षा प्रदान करने के लिए बना था, और उसकी अन्य धाराएँ (जैसे धारा 23) धारा 12 के अनुपालन में सहायक मात्र हैं, इसलिए यदि धारा 12 अल्पसंख्यक संस्थानों पर लागू नहीं होती, तो धारा 23 भी उन पर लागू नहीं हो सकती।
4. अनुच्छेद 15(5) की सुरक्षा – अल्पसंख्यक शैक्षणिक संस्थान संविधान के अनुच्छेद 30(1) के तहत एक अलग श्रेणी में आते हैं, और अनुच्छेद 15(5) के तहत उन्हें विशेष सुरक्षा प्रदान की गई है, जिससे यह सुनिश्चित किया जाता है कि बहुसंख्यक वर्ग अल्पसंख्यक संस्थानों में हस्तक्षेप न कर सके।
5. RTE अधिनियम का संवैधानिक विश्लेषण – यदि कोई कानून संविधान की किसी प्रविष्टि (VIIवीं अनुसूची) के तहत पारित हुआ है और चुनौती दी जाती है, तो यदि उसकी वैध और अवैध धाराएँ एक-दूसरे से इतनी जुड़ी हैं कि अलग नहीं की जा सकतीं, तो पूरा कानून ही असंवैधानिक घोषित हो सकता है।
6. Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan बनाम भारत संघ (2012) और Pramati (2014) के बीच अंतर – Society मामले में यह निर्णय दिया गया था कि RTE अधिनियम unaided अल्पसंख्यक संस्थानों पर लागू नहीं होता, लेकिन Pramati में इसे आगे बढ़ाते हुए कहा गया कि यह aided संस्थानों पर भी लागू नहीं होगा।
7. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्णय का प्रभाव – Pramati में यह स्वीकार किया गया कि अनुच्छेद 21A संसद को यह शक्ति नहीं देता कि वह अल्पसंख्यकों के खिलाफ कोई कानून बनाए। यदि अधिनियम की कुछ धाराएँ असंवैधानिक पाई जाती हैं और वे अन्य धाराओं से अविभाज्य हैं, तो पूरा अधिनियम निष्प्रभावी हो सकता है।
श्री रोमी चाको जी के अनुसार RTE अधिनियम के तहत जारी कोई भी अधिसूचना, जो शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा (TET) को अनिवार्य बनाती है, अल्पसंख्यक शिक्षण संस्थानों पर लागू नहीं हो सकती। सुप्रीम कोर्ट पहले ही स्पष्ट कर चुका है कि यह अधिनियम अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करता है और इसलिए, TET से संबंधित प्रावधान भी उन पर लागू नहीं होंगे।
जिसका जवाब देते हुए महान्यायवादी भारत सरकार श्री आर वेंकटरमणी जी ने कहा कि Pramati, Pai और ईमानदार मामले में बच्चों का हित उनके अधिकार को प्रस्तुत ही नहीं किया गया था। माननीय न्यायमूर्ति भी इस बात से सहमत थे।
इस तरह से वृहदपीठ के निर्णय के विरुद्ध दोनों न्यायमूर्ति जा नहीं सकते हैं परंतु महान्यायवादी के तर्क से सहमत होने के कारण मामले को संविधान पीठ में भेजने की चर्चा हुई मगर कोई भी पक्ष मामले को संविधानपीठ में भेजने के पक्ष में नहीं है। मगर यह सुनिश्चित है कि वृहदपीठ के आदेशों के कारण यदि माननीय अल्पसंख्यक बच्चों को RTE से न कवर कर पाए तो मामला संविधान पीठ में जा सकता है।
अगली सुनवाई 3 अप्रैल को होगी। इसमें पदोन्नति में टीईटी की अनिवार्यता का मामला भी टैग है।
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
C.A. No. 1385 OF 2025
ANJUMAN ISHAT E TALEEM TRUST
Vs.
Appellant
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and Ors.
Respondents
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY ROMY CHACKO, SENIOR ADVOCATE
1. The issue which arise in the present case is the validity or applicability of a notification issued under section 23 of the RTE Act providing for TET. It is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the RTE Act that the same was enacted pursuant to article 21A of the constitution. Art. 21A provides that the State shall implement free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 years through appropriate law.
2. Hence the Constitution Bench examined in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case (2014) 8 SCC 1 whether a law enacted pursuant to Article 21 A will apply to minorities. While dealing with the enabling power of the state to implement free and compulsory education it has been held that the power conferred on the state under Article 21-A of the Constitution cannot extend to making any law which will violate the right of the minorities to establish and administer the schools of their choice. (para 54). Consequently it was held RTE Act cannot be made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided as it will violate the rights of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the constitution. Hence none of the provisions of the Act can apply to minority educational institutions.
3. The Constitution Bench also held that the RTE Act cannot apply to even aided minority schools and clarified that the majority judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (supra) insofar as it holds it is applicable to minority aided schools is not correct. (Para 55)
4. The statement of objects and reasons indicate that RTE Act was enacted to ensure free and compulsory education to all children between the age of 6 and 14 years. The Central part of RTE Act is S. 12 r/w. S. 3. Every other provision including S. 23 is incidental and ancillary to the above 2 provisions. Therefore if section 12 does not apply to minorities, the remaining provisions of the Act also cannot apply. This is so because other provisions, particularly S. 23 does not have any independent existence apart from sections 12 and 3 of the Act. RTE Act was not enacted to test the eligibility of teachers, but for imparting free and compulsory education. Sec. 23 was enacted to maintain and ensure the standard of teachers imparting free and compulsory education. Teachers appointed in an institution governed by the RTE Act should have different skills compared with their counter parts in other schools. They should have the ability to blend EWS with the rest of the students. Hence, section 23 is integrally connected to S. 12 of the RTE Act. Consequently if sec. 12 does not apply to minorities, sec. 23 also cannot apply.
5. The CB upheld the exemption granted to minorities under article 15 (5) and negatived the contention that the same violate article 14. It was held that minority educational institutions by themselves constitute a separate class and their rights are protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. The purpose of article 15 (5) is to protect the minority character of the institution and to prevent the majority from making a law permitting others to be imposed in a minority institution (See Para 34,35).
6. The CB held that the 2009 Act to the extend it is made applicable to minority educational institutions was held to be ultra vires article 15 (5), 21A and 30 (1) of the constitution (see para 34, 35, 54, 55).
7. RTE Act was not enacted pursuant to any of the entries in the VIIth Schedule to the constitution. If a legislation enacted pursuant to any of the entries in the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution is subject to challenge, it is open to the Court to consider the validity of each and every provision in the Act as well as invoke the doctrine of severability. If the valid and invalid portions are inextricably linked to each other, then the doctrine of severability has no application and consequently the entirety of the Act has to be struck down.
8. The 3 Judge Bench in Society considered the validity of the 2009 Act itself and not simply section 12 as evident from paras 33 and 38, 53, 64 and 65 of the judgement. The court also examined as to whether RTE Act in its entirety will apply to minority schools. The same is answered at Para 65 as follows:
“65. However, the said 2009 Act, and in particular Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) infringes the fundamental freedom guaranteed to unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) and, consequently, applying the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India principle of severability, the said 2009 Act shall not apply to such schools.”
9. This means that once section 12 is found unconstitutional, the remaining provisions in the Act cannot survive as the same cannot be severed.
10. In Pramati the court did not examine the validity of each and every provision of the Act since the court came to the conclusion that Art. 21A does not empower the Parliament to pass a law against minorities.
11. The other way of looking at it is that once the 3 Judge Bench found that the valid and invalid provisions of the Act are inseparable and consequently, the entirety of the RTE Act cannot apply to minorities, there was no need to have a relook at the same issue.
12. While examining the validity of the Act in the Society case the court drew a distinction between articles 19 (1) g and 30 (1) and held that 2009 Act is intravires article 19 (1) g and ultravires article 30 (1). After considering Pai and Inamdar, it is held at para 53-2009 Act including section 12 (1) c is intravires 19 (1) g.
13. After referring to Art. 15(5), it is held at Para 61 that minority educational Institutions referred to in Article 30(1) form a separate category of institutions which needs protection of Article 30(1)
14. It is held at para 62 that 2009 Act including section 12 (1) c violate article 30 (1), but RTE Act will apply to aided minority schools.
15. While in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) RTE Act 2009 was declared inapplicable to unaided minority educational institutions, in Pramati (supra), RTE Act 2009 was made inapplicable to both aided and unaided minority educational institutions. The CB modified only one part of the judgment in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) and clarified in Pramati (supra) that even aided minority institutions will not come within the purview of RTE Act, 2009.
16. RTE Act was passed to give effect to article 21A ie, to provide free and compulsory education. The central part of the Act is section 12. All other provisions are incidental and ancillary to section 12. Hence if section 12 is ultravires article 30 (1), the entire Act becomes void.
17. In the society case this Honble court held that RTE Act violate article 30 (1). In Pramati it has been held RTE Act is ultravires both article 15(5) and 21A. Once the Act is declared as ultravires the constitution, there is no scope to dissect the judgement or to examine whether a particular provision in the same Act could still survive.
18. The judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Pramati was rendered in an answer to the reference made under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution by this Hon’ble Court regarding the constitutional validity of Article 15(5) as well as Article 21-A of the Constitution. The reference was not regarding the correctness of the judgment in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra). The subject-matter of challenge in Society (supra) was the validity of RTE Act, 2009 whereas the subject matter of challenge in Pramati (supra) was the validity of Art. 21-A and Art. 15(5) of the Constitution.
19. Even assuming that there is a merger of the judgment of the three Judge Bench with that of the CB in Pramati (supra), the finding of the three-judge bench that the RTE Act, 2009 will not apply to unaided minority institutions has been reiterated by the CB. The CB has not taken a different view on the application of the RTE Act, 2009. On the contrary, it has only widened the protection given to minorities in holding that the RTE Act, 2009 will not apply even to aided minority schools. Hence RTE cannot apply to any minority school.
– Rahul Pandey ‘Avichal’
– 📧 Email: [email protected]
– 📞 Contact: 9415226460
– 🔍 Social Media: @RahulGPande
