Author: Sara Singh, Law Centre – II, University of Delhi
TO THE POINT
The main issue in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust was whether minority educational institutions can claim exemption from statutory teacher qualification requirements on the basis of their constitutional right to administer their institutions.
The Supreme Court addressed this issue by laying down the following directions:
– Mandatory TET Requirement: The Court held that clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for teachers. This requirement applies to newly appointed teachers, in-service teachers and those seeking promotion.
– Limited Minority Autonomy: The judgment clarified that the administrative rights of minority educational institutions do not automatically exempt them from statutory requirements under the RTE Act. However, the extent to which the Act applies to minority institutions remains a matter of constitutional interpretation.
– Reference to a Larger Bench: Since the issue involves an earlier judgment delivered by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court referred the question of the applicability of the RTE Act to minority educational institutions to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
– Relief for Existing Teachers: To avoid causing hardship to existing teachers, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and granted a two-year period to in-service teachers with more than five years of service remaining to qualify the TET.
USE OF LEGAL JAGRON
The judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust has important implications for the relationship between minority rights and the state’s responsibility to ensure quality education. The key legal principles involved are as follows:
– Article 30(1) and Article 21A – Harmonious Construction:Article 30(1) of the Constitution gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, while Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education to children between 6 and 14 years of age. The Court examined how these two rights can coexist, emphasising that the administrative autonomy of minority institutions must be considered alongside the state’s responsibility to ensure quality education.
– A Fortiori (With Greater Reason): The principle of a fortiorimeans that if something is true in one situation, it is even more applicable in a stronger case. In this context, the TET requirement for teachers seeking to continue in service also raises the question of its applicability to those seeking promotion, where the responsibility and expectations may be greater.
– Right to Administer Does Not Mean Right to Maladminister:This well-established legal principle clarifies that the right of minority institutions to manage their affairs does not give them complete freedom from reasonable government regulation. The state can prescribe minimum standards for teachers and ensure the proper functioning of educational institutions, provided such regulations do not interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1).
– Per Incuriam and the Scope of the Earlier Judgment: The Court also considered the scope of the earlier five-judge bench decision, which had granted minority educational institutions protection from certain provisions of the RTE Act. The issue was whether this exemption should also extend to minimum teacher qualification requirements such as TET. This question was referred for consideration by a larger bench to clarify the constitutional position.
THE PROOF
The statutory basis of the judgment lies in Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, read along with the notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Section 23 provides that teachers must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority authorisedby the Central Government.
The following points were significant in the proceedings:
1. NCTE Guidelines: The notifications issued by the NCTE prescribe the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as an essential qualification for teachers. The requirement aims to maintain a uniform standard of teaching and ensure that teachers possess the necessary skills and knowledge.
2. NCPCR Findings: The Court also considered concerns raised by bodies such as the
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)
regarding students studying in minority educational institutions. It was pointed out that many of these students belong to non-minority communities and should also have access to the same standards of education and protection as other students.
3. Distinction Between Sections 12(1)(c) and 23: The Court distinguished between the provisions relating to admission and those dealing with teacher qualifications. Section 12(1)(c), which provides for 25% reservation for children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in certain schools, concerns admission policies and may affect the administrative autonomy of minority institutions. In contrast, Section 23 deals with the minimum qualifications required of teachers. The issue was whether such requirements could be enforced without interfering with the rights of minorities under Article 30(1).
Thus, the judgment raised an important question about how to balance the autonomy of minority educational institutions with the need to maintain minimum standards of education.
ABSTRACT
The balance between the state’s responsibility to maintain educational standards and the autonomy of minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India was reconsidered in the landmark case of
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025)
. A two-judge Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan examined the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) to Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs).
In 2014, a five-judge Bench had held that minority educational institutions were exempt from the RTE Act. In the present case, the Supreme Court reconsidered the scope of this exemption, particularly in relation to the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) prescribed under Section 23 of the Act. The Bench considered whether requiring teachers in minority institutions to qualify the TET would interfere with their rights under Article 30(1), or whether it was a reasonable measure to ensure quality education.
The judgment highlighted the importance of Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14, and the need to maintain minimum teaching standards. It also emphasised the distinction between the right of minority institutions to administer their institutions and the obligation to maintain proper educational standards. However, recognising the constitutional significance of the issue and its connection with the earlier five-judge Bench decision, the Court referred the broader question of the applicability of the RTE Act to minority institutions to a larger Constitution Bench for further consideration.
CASE LAWS
The judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust is significant as it revisits earlier judicial decisions on the applicability of the RTE Act to minority educational institutions. The Court examined the following precedents:
– Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014): In this case, a five-judge Bench held that the RTE Act was not applicable to minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, as its application would violate the rights guaranteed under Article 30(1). In Anjuman, the Court reconsidered the scope of this exemption, particularly in relation to the provisions concerning teacher qualifications.
– Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the RTE Act in this case. However, the judgment also raised questions about its application to minority institutions, which were subsequently addressed in Pramati.
– P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005): This judgment dealt with the autonomy of unaided educational institutions and the extent of permissible state regulation. The principles laid down in this case are relevant to understanding the distinction between reasonable regulations and interference with institutional autonomy, including the right of minorities to preserve their linguistic and cultural identity.
Together, these precedents provide the constitutional background for Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust. The case brings into focus the question of how far the state can regulate educational standards without interfering with the rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1).
CONCLUSION
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025)is an important judgment in the field of Indian educational law. The case highlights the relationship between a child’s right to quality education under Article 21A and the right of minority institutions to administer their institutions under Article 30(1). The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of qualified teachers in ensuring proper education and examined whether minority institutions should be exempt from the requirement of clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
The Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger Constitution Bench reflects the complexity of balancing minority rights with the need to maintain educational standards. In the meantime, interim relief has been provided to certain in-service teachers to avoid unnecessary hardship. The case raises important questions about the extent of state regulation in minority institutions and whether educational standards can be maintained without affecting their cultural and linguistic identity.
FAQS
Q1. Does this judgment mean that minority schools must immediately implement the 25% reservation quota for economically weaker sections?
Answer: No. The judgment mainly deals with the requirement of minimum teacher qualifications, particularly the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). It does not introduce any immediate change to the 25% reservation quota under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. The applicability of the RTE Act to minority institutions remains subject to further consideration by a larger Bench.
Q2. What happens to teachers working in minority schools who have not cleared the TET?
Answer: The Court has provided some relief to existing teachers by allowing those with more than five years of service remaining before retirement a period of two years to clear the TET. This relief has been granted under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, teachers seeking promotion are also required to meet the prescribed TET qualification requirements.
Q3. Why was the case referred to a larger Constitution Bench?
Answer: The matter was referred to a larger Bench because the judgment involves questions that were previously decided by a five-judge Bench in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014). A two-judge Bench cannot overrule a decision of a larger Bench. Therefore, the matter was referred for further consideration to resolve the constitutional questions surrounding the applicability of the RTE Act to minority educational institutions.
