The Supreme Court’s recent observations on the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is a decisive attempt to bolster the true spirit of the law. Calling the 25% admission mandate for children from economically weaker sections a “national mission”, the highest court clarified that this obligation is central to the constitutional vision of equality and cannot be treated as a peripheral welfare measure. At the heart of the judgment lies a simple proposition: schools are among the most effective instruments of social equalisation. This is why the RTE Act requires private, unaided schools to admit children from poorer backgrounds because early social integration weakens entrenched hierarchies and enables equal citizenship to take root. The court correctly emphasised that the promise of equality under Article 14 and the right to education under Article 21A would ring hollow if schooling mirrors social exclusion. Equally significant is the court’s insistence that fraternity is not an abstract moral aspiration, but a constitutional value amenable to legal enforcement. By linking Section 12 to fraternity, the judgment gives operational meaning to a principle often ignored in practice.

The court’s intervention is grounded in the reality of poor compliance across states and Union territories. More than 15 years after the RTE Act came into force, evidence shows that the EWS quota is frequently under-implemented — in Delhi’s 2025-26 school cycle, 3,506 of 33,212 EWS seats in private unaided schools were vacant. Similar patterns have been reported from Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Studies by civil society organisations have also documented discriminatory practices faced by underprivileged pupils, including informal fees, classroom segregation and denial of facilities. The court has correctly identified procedural failure as a central cause of exclusion. The absence of binding rules and reliance on advisories, lack of transparent admission portals, and weak grievance redressal mechanisms have allowed schools to evade accountability. By directing states to frame enforceable rules under Section 38 of the Act, consult child rights commissions, publish clear admission criteria and establish time-bound complaint mechanisms, the apex court has identified areas of structural weaknesses. The wisdom of the verdict must now be complemented by sustained administrative commitment.