Court holds rigid application of 'neighbourhood school' distance criteria under Right to Education Act violates child's fundamental right; directs immediate admission to prevent academic year loss.
In a significant judgment dated 19th October 2026, the Bombay High Court has set aside the cancellation of admission of a Scheduled Caste child in a private unaided school under the 25% quota mandated by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court, presided over by Justice N.J. Jamadar, emphasized that the concept of a "neighbourhood school" and prescribed distance criteria cannot be applied rigidly or pedantically in metropolitan contexts like Mumbai, where accessibility and other factors influence the practical reach of schools.
The case arose when Karuna Sumit Kamble's six-year-old daughter, Krishika, was allotted admission in Balmohan Vidyamandir School under the RTE Act's 25% quota for disadvantaged groups. Although the petitioner had correctly disclosed her residential address, the aerial distance mentioned in the application was erroneously less than the actual distance of about four kilometers. The Deputy Director of Education cancelled the admission after four months, solely on the ground that the child's residence exceeded the prescribed distance limit for the neighbourhood school.
The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending that the State Government had withdrawn strict area restrictions following a Division Bench ruling in Ashish Chaman Fulzele v. State of Maharashtra (March 2026). The Court noted that the legislative purpose behind the "neighbourhood school" requirement is to foster equality, dignity, and social integration, but the statutory phraseology "as far as possible" indicates flexibility. Distance must be considered a relative, not absolute, measure especially in a metro where transport and accessibility vary widely.
The Court examined the RTE Act provisions, Maharashtra Rules of 2011 and 2013, and relevant Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It highlighted that the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution must prevail over technical or inadvertent errors regarding distance. Furthermore, the State itself admitted it was impracticable to find alternative admission for the child in any other private unaided school at that stage, risking the loss of an academic year.
Rejecting the State's and the school's contention that the petitioner deliberately misled authorities by misstating the distance, the Court observed that the petitioner had not provided a false address and that the error on distance might have been bona fide. It also criticized the school's delayed objections and adversarial approach, which caused unnecessary prejudice to the child's education.
In its final order, the Court quashed the cancellation and directed the school and education authorities to admit the petitioner's daughter within one week, underscoring the primacy of the constitutional right to education over rigid technicalities.
This judgment reaffirms the flexible and child-centric approach required in implementing the RTE Act and sends a clear message against mechanical application of rules that may defeat the Act's fundamental purpose of inclusive and accessible education for all children, especially from disadvantaged groups.
Bottom Line:
Right to Education Act, 2009 - Admission under 25% quota in private unaided school - Admission of child belonging to disadvantaged group cancelled only on ground that residence was beyond prescribed distance - Held, concept of "neighbourhood school" and distance criteria cannot be applied in a rigid and pedantic manner - Where parent had disclosed correct residential address, only aerial distance was incorrectly mentioned, authorities had already allotted school, cancellation was made after about four months and alternative admission in another private unaided school was not practicable, child's fundamental right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A must prevail - Cancellation set aside and school directed to admit child.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21A, Constitution of India; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Sections 3, 6, 12(1)(c); Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 Rules 2(m), 4, 7(3)
Karuna Sumit Kamble v. Deputy Director of Education, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000524
