Rigid Area Limits Cannot Impinge on a Child’s Right to Education, Rules Bombay High Court

  • Post published:
  • Post category:Bombay High Court
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Rigid Area Limits Cannot Impinge on a Child’s Right to Education, Rules Bombay High Court in Karuna Sumit Kamble v. Deputy Director of Education

Case: Karuna Sumit Kamble v. The Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region & Ors.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:42896
Date of Judgment: 19 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice N. J. Jamadar
Proceedings: Writ Petition No. 11310 of 2026 (under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

Court Observation

“A very rigid view of the limits of area to the point that deviation therefrom is impermissible would, in a given case, impinge upon the constitutional right of free and compulsory education.”

Summary

The Bombay High Court has restored the admission of a six-year-old girl to Standard I under the 25% reservation quota for disadvantaged groups and weaker sections under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, dated 14 August 2026, which had cancelled the child’s admission at Balmohan Vidyamandir, Dadar, solely on the ground of a discrepancy in the reported home-to-school distance.

The Court held that the area limits prescribed for identifying a “neighbourhood school” are a means of securing a child’s right to education and not an end in themselves. A rigid and sacrosanct view of distance limits, particularly in a metropolis like Mumbai, could impinge upon the constitutional right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A. Noting that Parliament had never defined “neighbourhood school”, that the Rules qualify the limits with the expression “as far as possible”, and that the mother’s correct address and documents were on record, the Court concluded that the error in the aerial distance figure could have been inadvertent and bona fide.

Key Holdings

  • Area limits for the identification of a neighbourhood school under the RTE Act, 2009, are a means of securing a child’s right to education and not an end in themselves.
  • A rigid and impermissible view of the limits of area, particularly in a metropolis like Mumbai, can impinge upon the constitutional right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution.
  • Parliament has not defined “neighbourhood school” in the RTE Act; the Rules themselves qualify the prescribed distances with the expression “as far as possible”, indicating flexibility.
  • Distance is a relative concept, and a bona fide or inadvertent error in reporting aerial distance cannot be the sole basis for cancelling a child’s admission when the correct address and documents were on record.

Directions Issued

  • The child shall be admitted to Standard I at Balmohan Vidyamandir, Dadar, within one week.

Background

The child, Krishika, the six-year-old daughter of petitioner Karuna Sumit Kamble, an SC/disadvantaged-group child residing in a BDD chawl at Worli, was allotted Balmohan Vidyamandir, Dadar, as her third preference on 10 April 2026 under the 25% RTE quota. The school declined to admit her and about twelve other allotted students, and the Deputy Director of Education cancelled her admission after an inspector reported her home to be about 4 km away, while the application had stated an aerial distance of 0.417 km. The Court relied on the State’s position, adopted after a Division Bench decision in a Nagpur Bench public interest litigation, that distance restrictions would not be imposed for admissions to private unaided schools under the RTE quota. The judgment, reserved on 12 October, was pronounced on 19 October in a 39-page ruling.

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Related Articles