Neighbourhood schools are bound to admit State-forwarded students under the RTE Act without independent scrutiny or delay.

Respondent No. 5 (the student) applied for admission into a pre-primary class for the academic year 2024-25 under the procedure prescribed by the UP RTE Rules, 2011

The student was selected and allotted to the petitioner school by the Basic Education Department, but the school refused admission, citing "uncertainty about the student’s eligibility"

The student filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the school to grant admission, ruling that schools cannot sit in appeal over Government decisions

The petitioner school subsequently challenged this order before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition

Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandates that neighbourhood schools reserve 25% of class strength for children from weaker and disadvantaged sections

Article 21A of the Constitution of India, establishing education as a fundamental right

Rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011, which stipulates that admission processes must be transparent and that Government-prescribed processes are binding on schools

Principle of "co-relative duties" from Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026 INSC 56), identifying five duty bearers—the Government, local authorities, schools, parents, and teachers—responsible for ensuring the Right to Education

The Court reasoned that the "neighbourhood school" concept is a deliberate constitutional strategy to foster social integration and substantive justice during a child's formative years

Under Rule 8 of the UP RTE Rules, once the Government scrutinizes an application and forwards a list to the school, the school lacks the legal standing to veto or delay the admission

The Court clarified that while a school might have a disagreement with the Government's selection, it is legally bound to grant admission in the interregnum while any representation is pending

Delaying admission on the pretext of eligibility concerns undermines the "letter and spirit" of Article 21A and treats a fundamental right as an "empty promise"

The Court emphasized that judicial bodies and schools must act with "immediacy" to ensure the statutory policy remains transformative

The Court held that schools cannot independently stall admissions based on eligibility doubts once the State has made an allocation

Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and the school was mandated to grant the student admission immediately