Introduction:
The Telangana High Court, in Brothers of St. Gabriel Educational Society & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 103, reaffirmed the constitutional protection available to minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution by holding that they cannot be compelled to provide free education to the children of journalists through administrative directions issued under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that the provisions of the RTE Act are inapplicable to minority educational institutions in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India. The Court further held that the State had no statutory authority to extend the benefit of free education to a particular class of persons merely because journalists’ associations had made such a request.
The writ petitions were filed by the Brothers of St. Gabriel Educational Society and the educational institutions managed by it, challenging proceedings issued by the District Educational Officers directing private recognised schools to provide free education to the children of journalists under the provisions of the RTE Act. The petitioners contended that they were minority unaided educational institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and that the impugned directions unlawfully interfered with their constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The case required the High Court to examine whether administrative authorities could invoke the RTE Act against minority institutions despite settled Supreme Court precedents and whether the State could create a special category of beneficiaries for free education without any statutory backing.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the impugned proceedings were unconstitutional and without authority of law. They submitted that the Supreme Court had conclusively held in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and the Constitution Bench judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India that the provisions of the RTE Act, particularly Section 12(1)(c), cannot be enforced against minority educational institutions because doing so would violate the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioners further contended that journalists do not constitute a legally recognised class entitled to free education under the RTE Act. Even where the Act applies, the obligation to provide free education is confined to the categories specifically recognised by the statute and only to the extent prescribed by law. The authorities, therefore, had no jurisdiction to compel minority institutions to provide free education to children of journalists merely on the basis of administrative directions.
The petitioners also argued that the impugned proceedings imposed financial and administrative burdens upon their institutions without providing any opportunity of hearing. Such action, they submitted, violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution.
The State defended the impugned proceedings by stating that journalists’ associations had represented before the authorities that many journalists belonged to economically weaker sections and were unable to bear the increasing cost of education due to high school fees. Acting on those representations, the District Educational Officers issued the directions requesting private recognised schools to provide free education to the children of journalists.
However, the respondents candidly admitted in their counter affidavit that the impugned instructions were not mandatory in nature and had been issued only on the basis of requests received from journalists’ associations. No statutory provision authorising such directions was pointed out before the Court.
Court’s Judgment:
The Telangana High Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the impugned proceedings. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi held that there was no dispute regarding the minority status of the petitioners and that they were entitled to the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 30(1).
The Court observed that the legal position regarding the applicability of the RTE Act to minority educational institutions had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court. Referring to Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and the Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the provisions of the RTE Act, including Section 12(1)(c), cannot be enforced against minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, since such enforcement would interfere with their fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The Court further found that the State lacked any statutory authority to extend the benefit of free education to a specific class such as children of journalists. The respondents themselves had admitted that the impugned proceedings were issued solely because journalists’ associations had requested such a benefit. The Court held that administrative instructions issued merely on the basis of such representations cannot override constitutional protections or impose legal obligations where none exist under the statute.
Justice Sridevi observed that neither the RTE Act nor the Rules framed under it empower educational authorities to compel private recognised schools, particularly minority educational institutions, to provide free education to all children of journalists. In the absence of any legislative provision or valid governmental policy, the impugned directions were held to be arbitrary and beyond the authority of law.
The Court also held that the impugned proceedings had significant financial and administrative consequences for the petitioners’ institutions. Therefore, adherence to the principles of natural justice was essential before issuing such directions. Since no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioners, the action of the authorities was held to be arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Telangana High Court quashed the impugned proceedings and reaffirmed that constitutional protections available to minority educational institutions cannot be diluted through executive instructions lacking statutory support. The judgment reinforces that administrative authorities must act strictly within the limits of the law and cannot create new obligations or beneficiary classes merely on the basis of representations made by private associations.