Delhi HC Upholds Detention of EWS Student in Class V, Directs School to Honour RTE Entitlements

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the detention of a Class V EWS student, holding that Section 16 of the RTE Act had been satisfied after multiple re-examination opportunities were offered and not utilised.

The High Court of Delhi, on 9 July 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed on behalf of a minor child — Master Sorabh Rathor — who had been detained in Class V at North Delhi Public School after failing the class examination at the end of the 2025–2026 academic session. Justice Jasmeet Singh, sitting singly, found that the school had given the petitioner adequate opportunities to clear Class V through re-examinations, as required under Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The court directed the petitioner to repeat Class V and ordered the school to ensure that all EWS entitlements — including free textbooks, notebooks, writing materials, and uniforms — are adequately fulfilled throughout his continued enrolment.

The Child's Circumstances and the Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner is a minor from an extremely vulnerable and impoverished background. He is under the care of his grandmother, who survives on an old age pension of Rs. 2,500 per month. He was admitted to North Delhi Public School under the Economically Weaker Section category pursuant to Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act.

His academic record across three consecutive years painted a consistent picture of difficulty. In Class III (2022–2023) he secured 12% marks but was promoted. In Class IV (2023–2024) he secured 7% marks and was again promoted. In Class V (2024–2025) he again secured 7% marks. The school then gave him a re-examination, in which his marks improved marginally to 8%. He was detained in Class V on that basis.

At the end of the following session (2025–2026), the detention continued. The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a departmental circular — Order F.No.DE.15(1025)/PSB/2023/7435-7439 dated 22 August 2023 — to the extent it created a category of “essential repeater” that could disrupt a child's continued education at the school where he was admitted under Section 12(1)(c). The petitioner also sought a mandamus directing the school to allow him to attend Class VI forthwith and to provide him with the full set of free materials under the RTE Act.

The Legal Issue: Section 16 of the RTE Act and the Detention Framework

Section 16 of the RTE Act governs examinations and the holding back of children in elementary school. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, argued that the school's action in detaining the petitioner in Class V violated Section 16 of the Act. He further contended that Respondents 2 and 3 had not framed the rules required under Section 16(3), which are a precondition before any State government or authority can allow schools to hold back a child.

Section 16 as reproduced in the order provides that a regular examination shall be held at the end of Class V and Class VIII each academic year. If a child fails, he must be given additional instruction and a re-examination within two months of the result. It is only after failure in the re-examination that an appropriate government may, subject to prescribed conditions, allow schools to hold a child back. The section also expressly bars expulsion of any child from school until the completion of elementary education.

The petitioner's counsel pressed that the procedural framework for detention — specifically the rules under Section 16(3) — had not been put in place by the appropriate government, making the detention impermissible regardless of the child's academic performance.

The School's Position and the Principal's Statement

Mr. Narang, appearing for North Delhi Public School, pointed to the counter affidavit detailing the petitioner's academic history. The school's principal, Ms. Punita, joined the proceedings via video conferencing and stated that after the examinations, the petitioner was given two fresh examination opportunities — on 25 May 2026 and 5 June 2026. The petitioner did not avail himself of the first opportunity at all. In the second attempt, he secured only 12% marks.

Ms. Punita also told the court that additional classes had been offered to the petitioner, but those too were not availed of by him.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Jasmeet Singh held that Section 16 of the RTE Act must be read in a meaningful manner. In his view, the purpose of Section 16 is that in elementary classes, a larger latitude must be given to children from the EWS category to afford them an opportunity to move ahead in their academic careers. That principle, the court found, did not operate in the petitioner's favour on the specific facts before it.

The court examined the answer sheets of the petitioner annexed to the counter affidavit. Its assessment was direct: the petitioner was not able to comprehend even the basics and fundamentals of mathematics as of the date of the hearing. Promoting him to Class VI in that state, the court reasoned, would not serve the child's actual educational interest.

Justice Singh drew a distinction between expulsion and detention. The court observed that the petitioner was not being expelled or thrown out of school to disrupt his academic career. He was only being asked to repeat Class V so that he could understand and comprehend the basic subjects — Mathematics, English, E.V.S., and Hindi. Section 16(4)'s absolute bar on expulsion before completion of elementary education was therefore not engaged.

On the petitioner's argument about the adequacy of opportunities, the court found that, on the factual matrix, the petitioner had been afforded enough chances to improve and secure adequate marks for promotion. He had been promoted twice despite failing marks, had been given re-examinations, had been offered additional classes, and had been given two fresh examination dates in 2026 — one of which he did not attend. The court concluded that the petitioner had not been able to overcome those hurdles, but not for want of opportunity.

The court expressly did not examine the prayer seeking to quash the August 2023 departmental circular creating the “essential repeater” category, noting that the main prayer of the petitioner — direction to attend Class VI — stood answered by the court's finding on detention.

Order

The petition was disposed of on 9 July 2026. Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the petitioner shall repeat Class V at North Delhi Public School. The court simultaneously directed the school to ensure that the EWS mandate and entitlements are adequately fulfilled for the petitioner. All pending applications were disposed of in the same terms.