Telangana HC Sets Aside Orders Directing Minority Schools to Give Free Education to Journalists' Children
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi quashed three government circulars that compelled minority educational institutions to provide free education to journalists' children, holding that the RTE Act cannot apply to minority schools under Article 30(1).
The Telangana High Court has quashed three circulars issued by District Educational Officers directing all private recognised schools, including minority institutions, to provide free education to children of journalists. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi, sitting singly, held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) cannot be enforced against minority educational institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India. The Court further found that the circulars were issued without any statutory authority and without affording the affected institutions a hearing, making them doubly unsustainable. Both writ petitions, filed in 2015, were allowed by a common order.
Circulars That Triggered the Petitions
In 2014, journalists in Hyderabad submitted representations to the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, complaining that private recognised schools charged exorbitant fees and that they, belonging to economically weaker sections, could not afford admission for their children. Acting on these representations and requests from journalists’ associations, the District Educational Officers issued three circulars: Rc.No.7987/B6/2014 dated 11 September 2014, Rc.No.7910/C2/2014 dated 16 July 2014, and Rc.No.8425/B6/2014 dated 30 July 2014. These circulars directed all private recognised educational institutions to provide free education to children of journalists studying in their schools, purportedly under the RTE Act.
Brothers of St Gabriel Educational Society and the institutions it administers were among those caught by the circulars. The petitioners addressed representations in December 2014 to the State government, asking it to direct the District Educational Officers of Hyderabad, Rangareddy, and Warangal districts not to insist on compliance. No effective action followed. The petitioners then filed WP No. 5035 of 2015 and WP No. 13240 of 2015, each seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the circulars arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and to restrain enforcement of the RTE Act against minority institutions.
The Constitutional and Statutory Objections
Before the Court, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch. Samson Babu, pressed two distinct sets of arguments.
The first rested on settled constitutional law. The petitioners are minority educational institutions covered by Article 30(1). In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) of the RTE Act infringe the fundamental freedom of unaided minority schools and that the Act shall not apply to such schools. The Constitution Bench then authoritatively settled the position in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1, holding that the RTE Act, insofar as it applies to minority schools — whether aided or unaided — under Article 30(1) is ultra vires the Constitution. Compelling such institutions to implement the RTE Act would interfere with their constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The second objection went to jurisdiction and policy. Journalists, the petitioners argued, do not constitute a specially privileged class entitled to free education for their children, nor had it been shown that they fall below the poverty line. Even where the RTE Act does apply, the obligation extends only to a specified percentage of seats — not to all children of a particular occupational category. Extending such a benefit is a matter of governmental policy, and the educational officers had no statutory authority to issue such a direction to minority institutions on the basis of representations from a journalists’ association alone.
The petitioners also raised a natural justice point. The circulars were issued without any notice or hearing to the affected schools, despite having direct financial and administrative consequences. Journalists whose children were enrolled refused to pay tuition fees after the circulars were issued. Any coercive recovery action against such students would harm both the institutions’ reputation and the students’ academic interests.
The State's Position and an Admission That Weakened Its Case
The Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit explaining the background: the journalists’ associations had complained of high fees and requested that children of economically weaker journalists be permitted free admission under the RTE Act. The State pointed to G.O.Ms.No.20, Education Department, dated 3 March 2011, framed under the RTE Act, as the broader framework. However, the counter affidavit itself conceded that the impugned instructions were not mandatory in nature and were issued only pursuant to the requests made by the journalists’ associations.
That admission became pivotal. The Court noted that the respondents had not pointed to any provision under the RTE Act or the Rules framed thereunder empowering them to direct all private recognised schools to provide free education to all children of journalists as a class.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sridevi identified three independent grounds on which the circulars could not stand.
The first and primary ground was the constitutional bar established by the Supreme Court. There was no dispute that the petitioners are minority educational institutions under Article 30(1). The Constitution Bench in Pramati categorically held that the RTE Act is ultra vires as applied to minority schools, whether aided or unaided. The Court said it had “no hesitation in holding that the provisions of the RTE Act cannot be enforced against the petitioners-institutions.”
The second ground was lack of statutory authority. The material on record showed no provision in the RTE Act or the State Rules empowering the District Educational Officers to direct private recognised schools to provide free education to all children of journalists. The respondents’ own counter confirmed the circulars were issued merely on the basis of association requests. The Court held that “administrative instructions issued merely on the basis of such requests cannot override constitutional protections nor can they create obligations unsupported by statutory authority.”
The third ground was violation of natural justice. The circulars imposed direct financial and administrative burdens on the institutions without affording them any opportunity of hearing. The Court held that adherence to the principles of natural justice was indispensable before issuing such directions, and the failure to do so rendered the action arbitrary and unsustainable.
Taken together, the Court held that the impugned proceedings were arbitrary, without authority of law, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Outcome
Both writ petitions were allowed. The Court set aside all three circulars: Rc.No.7987/B6/2014 dated 11 September 2014, Rc.No.7910/C2/2014 dated 16 July 2014, and Rc.No.8425/B6/2014 dated 30 July 2014. There was no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.