Introduction:

In the matter involving 51 students from Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, who through their guardian filed two petitions challenging the June 16, 2025 order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department to merge government primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 enrolled students, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed both petitions and upheld the State’s plan, recognizing it as a legitimate and necessary policy to make the education system more functional, efficient, and sustainable. The petitions, represented by Senior Advocate LP Mishra and Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, argued that the merger scheme, which envisaged “pairing” or amalgamating low-enrollment schools with nearby institutions, violated the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India by placing undue hardship on children who would have to travel greater distances to access schooling. The petitioners contended that the State’s decision was arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which requires States to ensure neighborhood schooling so that no child is deprived of access to free and compulsory education. They emphasized that forcing children, especially those from rural or economically marginalized backgrounds, to walk longer distances would increase dropout rates, compromise their safety, and hinder their ability to exercise their constitutional right to education. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the State government’s order lacked any study or empirical data on the negative impact on children’s attendance and performance, and submitted that any policy affecting such a vital right must be based on clear evidence and mindful consideration of the hardships it would impose on the most vulnerable sections of society. They insisted that education policies should prioritize accessibility and inclusivity, not mere administrative convenience, and that the government’s decision amounted to a breach of its constitutional obligations under Article 21A and provisions of the RTE Act mandating availability of primary schools within a prescribed distance from children’s homes. The petitioners further argued that the policy would particularly affect girls, who are more likely to drop out if schooling becomes less accessible due to societal and safety concerns associated with traveling long distances, thereby defeating national goals of gender parity in education.

Arguments:

On the other hand, the State of Uttar Pradesh, through its counsel, defended the June 16 order by highlighting the acute challenges in managing thousands of government-run primary schools with dwindling enrollments, where in many cases there were fewer than 20 or even 10 students per school, resulting in disproportionate resource allocation and severe inefficiencies. The State submitted that its “pairing” scheme aims to rationalize educational infrastructure by merging such underutilized schools with nearby better-equipped ones, enabling optimal deployment of teachers, improved availability of learning materials, and more holistic education, which would be impossible in sparsely populated standalone schools. The government argued that small schools with negligible enrollment often fail to provide a competitive or interactive learning environment, leading to disinterest and higher dropout rates, and that consolidating schools would not only ensure better student-teacher ratios but also enable the creation of better facilities, like science labs, libraries, and playgrounds, which cannot be sustainably maintained in every micro-school with extremely low attendance. The State emphasized that the merger plan is not intended to close schools indiscriminately but to strategically combine institutions within reasonable distances, and cited multiple Supreme Court precedents which have held that policy decisions of the executive aimed at improving public welfare cannot be lightly interfered with by courts unless they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. The government also pointed out that Article 21A does not guarantee education at any particular location but mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to children in the 6-14 age group, which, it argued, is being fulfilled through the merger plan by ensuring that every child continues to have access to schooling. It was further submitted that the move would help redirect financial and human resources to where they are most needed, especially given the fiscal constraints of the education budget, and ultimately help the State achieve the goals of reducing dropout rates, improving learning outcomes, and effectively implementing the National Education Policy 2020’s emphasis on consolidation for better quality.

Judgement:

After hearing both sides, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the petitions, upheld the Uttar Pradesh government’s policy decision, observing that the merger of schools with extremely low enrollments is a pragmatic step aimed at addressing the dual challenges of resource wastage and declining quality of education in scattered, underpopulated schools. The Court noted that education policy, especially when involving administrative measures like rationalization of infrastructure, falls squarely within the domain of the executive, and courts should not ordinarily interfere unless a policy is shown to violate fundamental rights in a direct and egregious manner. Justice Bhatia recorded that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any empirical data or specific instances where children’s right to education would be effectively extinguished due to the merger plan, as the State’s counsel had produced documents showing that schools selected for merger were within a reasonable distance of alternative facilities, ensuring continuity of education without infringing Article 21A. The Court accepted the State’s argument that the aim of the pairing scheme is to improve the functionality, viability, and quality of government schools, and to address chronic problems of teacher absenteeism and poor infrastructure in schools with too few students to sustain effective education. Justice Bhatia also observed that the RTE Act must be read harmoniously with the practical realities faced by the State in delivering education to millions of children spread across diverse geographies, and that neighborhood schooling norms under the Act do not require a rigid, mechanical application that disregards efficiency or sustainability. The judgment pointed out that safeguarding the fundamental right to education under Article 21A also involves ensuring that the education imparted is meaningful and of reasonable quality, which cannot happen in a vacuum where resources are stretched thin across thousands of schools with negligible enrollment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State’s merger plan, far from violating constitutional or statutory rights, is a bona fide measure intended to serve the best interests of children by consolidating resources, improving learning environments, and creating viable schools that can better fulfill the objectives of free and quality education envisaged under the Constitution and the RTE Act. A detailed order laying out the reasoning of the bench in greater depth is awaited, but the operative portion of the judgment makes it clear that the petitions challenging the merger policy stand dismissed, and the State government’s plan for pairing of under-enrolled schools with nearby institutions can proceed as notified.