Introduction:

In Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3228 of 2025), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the constitutional sanctity of a child’s right to education. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode intervened to protect a 13-year-old Class VII student who had been issued a transfer certificate and effectively expelled from school for non-payment of fees amounting to ₹23,900. The Court declared the school’s action illegal and arbitrary in light of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). While directing the school to re-admit the student forthwith, the Court also ordered the parents to clear the outstanding fees within two weeks, thereby striking a careful balance between institutional financial interests and the child’s fundamental right to education. The ruling stands as a strong reiteration that education cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative or financial disputes.

Factual Background:

The petitioner, a 13-year-old girl studying in Class VII, approached the High Court through her father after she was issued a transfer certificate by the school for non-payment of fees. As a result, she was deprived of continuing her education. The father alleged that he had raised concerns regarding the functioning of the school, accusing it of profiteering and exploiting students by charging arbitrary fees and not using NCERT-prescribed textbooks. According to the petition, the school’s action in issuing the transfer certificate was retaliatory and punitive.

The school management, on the other hand, strongly refuted these allegations. It contended that the father had misused his daughter for political mileage and had even threatened to immolate himself to pressurise the management. The school maintained that its action was justified due to non-payment of fees and denied any illegality.

The matter thus presented before the Court was not merely a dispute over unpaid fees, but a larger question involving the scope of the RTE Act, the applicability of constitutional protections, and the responsibilities of unaided minority institutions affiliated with CBSE.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the school’s action of issuing a transfer certificate before completion of elementary education was directly violative of the RTE Act, 2009. The Act guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14 years and prohibits expulsion or detention of a child before completion of elementary education, except in limited circumstances.

It was contended that the school could not deprive a 13-year-old girl of her right to education merely because fees had not been paid. The petitioner emphasised that Article 21-A of the Constitution of India confers a fundamental right to education, and any action that obstructs this right must withstand strict judicial scrutiny.

The petitioner further argued that the school had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of Maharashtra in 2007 for starting a CBSE section, subject to the condition that it would abide by the rules and regulations of the State Government. Therefore, it could not selectively disclaim the applicability of the RTE Act while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of State recognition.

It was also submitted that the Panchayat Education Officer had granted approval under the RTE Act and that the school could not now challenge such applicability to escape statutory obligations.

Arguments on Behalf of the School:

The school management argued that it was affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and was registered as a minority institution under the Maharashtra Government. Being an unaided minority institution, it claimed exemption from the applicability of the RTE Act.

The school contended that the Panchayat Education Officer lacked authority to grant approval under the RTE Act without prior sanction. It asserted that the provisions of the RTE Act were not applicable to it due to its minority status and unaided nature.

Addressing the father’s allegations, the school alleged that he had caused mental, physical, and academic harm to his daughter by involving her in disputes with the management. It was argued that the father’s conduct demonstrated ulterior motives, and that the school had acted within its administrative rights by issuing a transfer certificate after repeated defaults in fee payment.

The management attempted to portray its action as a legitimate exercise of institutional autonomy rather than a violation of statutory or constitutional obligations.

Issues Before the Court:

The principal issues that arose for determination were:

• Whether the RTE Act, 2009 was applicable to the school in question.
• Whether issuance of a transfer certificate for non-payment of fees to a 13-year-old student amounted to a violation of Article 21-A and the RTE Act.
• Whether the school could rely on its minority and unaided status to deny statutory protections guaranteed under the Act.

Court’s Analysis:

Importance of Education

At the outset, the Bench made powerful observations regarding the importance of education in contemporary society. The judges noted:

“In today’s world, importance of education cannot be undermined as it’s due to the education only, the personality of person blossoms.”

This philosophical yet constitutional recognition framed the Court’s approach. Education was not treated as a contractual service, but as a transformative right integral to human development.

Article 21-A and the RTE Act

The Court referred extensively to Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to children between 6 and 14 years of age. The RTE Act was enacted to operationalise this constitutional guarantee.

The Bench observed that the spirit of Article 21-A and the RTE Act must guide interpretation. If these are considered in their true spirit, the action of the school in issuing a transfer certificate before completion of elementary education was wholly unjustified.

Section 16(4) of the RTE Act prohibits expulsion of a child until completion of elementary education. The Court held that the school’s action clearly violated this statutory mandate.

Minority Status and Applicability of RTE

Addressing the school’s claim of minority status, the Court examined the circumstances under which the school had obtained permission to start its CBSE section. The Government of Maharashtra had granted a No Objection Certificate in 2007, explicitly stipulating that the school must abide by State rules and regulations.

The Bench strongly criticised the management’s inconsistent stance:

“School management cannot blow both hot and cold.”

The Court observed that the school had taken advantage of the NOC to run its CBSE section, but was simultaneously attempting to evade statutory responsibilities under the RTE Act.

Once the management had acted upon the communications granting NOC, it could not resile from its obligations. The principle of fairness and consistency barred such conduct.

Concern for the Child

The Court also noted the contradiction in the school’s stand. On one hand, it expressed concern for the safety and well-being of the child, alleging that the father’s actions had harmed her. On the other hand, it had issued a transfer certificate, effectively depriving her of education.

The judges remarked:

“It is thus clear that in one breath, the school has shown concern about safety of child and in another, has issued a transfer certificate in her favour.”

Such contradictory conduct further strengthened the Court’s conclusion that the action was arbitrary.

Balancing Competing Interests

While the Court firmly protected the child’s right to education, it did not ignore the financial aspect of the dispute. Recognising that fees had indeed remained unpaid, the Bench directed the parents to clear the outstanding amount of ₹23,900 within two weeks.

This balanced approach ensured that the school’s financial claim was acknowledged, while preventing irreversible harm to the child’s education.

Final Judgment:

The Court held that the impugned action of expelling the petitioner before completion of her elementary education was in clear violation of Section 16(4) of the RTE Act and therefore unsustainable in law.

The petition was disposed of with directions to the school to re-admit the student and to the parents to clear the outstanding fees within two weeks.

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation that educational institutions cannot prioritise administrative or financial considerations over constitutional guarantees.