Supreme Court Upholds TET Requirement for Teachers and Questions Broad Exemption of Minority Schools from RTE

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard a batch of appeals challenging multiple High Court orders on the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) and the mandatory nature of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The appeals arose from divergent High Court rulings in Bombay and Madras and raised two central issues: whether State or statutory authority could insist on TET qualification for appointment (and promotion) of teachers in minority educational institutions, and whether in‑service teachers appointed prior to prescribed dates must acquire TET qualification for continuance or promotion.

The Court delivered a measured judgment addressing constitutional interaction between Article 21A (right to education) and Article 30(1) (minority right to establish and administer institutions), and issued directions on TET compliance for in‑service and prospective teachers. The Court emphasised harmony between competing fundamental rights and doubted the correctness of a prior Constitution‑Bench ruling to the extent that it read the RTE Act out of application to all minority schools. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court held that statutory measures enacted to give effect to Article 21A — including minimum teacher qualifications and the TET prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act and NCTE notifications — constituted permissible regulatory standards aimed at ensuring quality elementary education. The bench expressed serious doubts about the blanket applicability of the Constitution‑Bench conclusion in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust that the RTE Act was wholly inapplicable to minority schools, observing that the earlier decision had focussed principally on Section 12(1)(c) (25% reservation) and did not analyse other regulatory provisions. The Court therefore recorded its view that the RTE Act must apply to schools as defined in Section 2(n) (subject to the question of minority rights pending further reference), and that TET qualification is a valid minimum qualification under Section 23.

The Court issued interim, pragmatic directions on in‑service teachers: those with less than five years’ service remaining could continue till superannuation without TET, but they would not be eligible for promotion unless they obtained TET; those with more than five years to retire were directed to secure TET within two years or face compulsory retirement with statutory terminal benefits where applicable. The Court also referred specific questions for consideration by a larger Bench, signalling the need to revisit the scope of the earlier Constitution‑Bench ruling on minority institutions.

Background The litigation consolidated numerous appeals from Bombay and Madras High Courts. The Bombay High Court (lead matters) had upheld a Maharashtra Government Resolution making TET a pre‑condition for appointment and granted interim relief to some teachers in minority‑run schools; the Madras High Court held that TET was mandatory for non‑minority schools but, relying on Pramati, exempted minority institutions. The primary issues were: (i) whether the State could insist on TET for appointment in minority institutions and whether such insistence infringed Article 30(1); and (ii) whether teachers appointed prior to the NCTE/RTE notifications must clear TET for promotion or continuance. The Union, States, minority bodies and teachers made detailed submissions on constitutional harmony, statutory text (Sections 12 and 23 RTE; Section 12A NCTE Act), NCTE notifications of 23‑08‑2010 and later amendments, and the 2017 amendment to RTE that provided transitional periods. The Court reviewed precedent (Unni Krishnan, T.M.A. Pai, Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, Pramati) and statutory history, raised doubts about the breadth of Pramati’s exemption, and directed a reference to a larger Bench on narrow questions about the applicability of RTE to minority institutions while issuing interim relief and timelines on TET compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025 (Lead) Case Title: Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel for Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust and other appellants (as per record) For the Respondent(s): K.K. Venkatramani, Attorney General for India (assisted the Court); N. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (assisted); counsel for State Governments and other respondents (as per record)

(The Court directed circulation of the issues formulated for a larger‑Bench reference and modified the impugned High Court orders in accordance with the interim directions set out above.)