Supreme Court in Lucknow Public School Eldico v. State of UP, 2026 INSC 422 (28 April 2026) — bench of Justices P S Narasimha + Alok Aradhe — has held that private unaided schools have a binding constitutional and statutory obligation to grant immediate admission to students allotted by the State under the 25% EWS-and-disadvantaged-groups quota in Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009; schools cannot 'sit in appeal' over State selection; can make representation but must grant admission in interregnum; case cites Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 56 for five 'duty bearers' framework; affirms RTE quota as a 'national mission' and 'transformative constitutional mechanism'.

The Supreme Court of India delivered judgment on 28 April 2026 in Lucknow Public School, Eldico and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026 INSC 422) — a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 60657 of 2024) and affirmed the Allahabad High Court's order directing the school to admit a pre-primary student forwarded by UP authorities under the 25% RTE quota for the 2024-25 academic session.

Background facts:
- A student applied to the Basic Education Department, Uttar Pradesh for admission to a pre-primary class for academic year 2024-25
- Selected as per the procedure under the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011
- Name forwarded to Lucknow Public School, Eldeco in the published list
- School denied admission citing 'uncertainty about the student's eligibility'
- Student approached Allahabad High Court through writ petition
- HC ruled schools cannot 'sit in appeal' over State Government selection decisions
- School filed SLP before SC challenging HC order
- SC dismissed the SLP and reaffirmed the HC's direction

Key holdings of the Supreme Court:
1. Mandatory immediate admission: Schools must admit state-allotted students 'the moment their names appear on the official list'
2. Prohibition of appeal: Private schools are legally barred from sitting in appeal over State's selection decisions
3. No withholding during dispute: Schools that disagree may make representation to the concerned authority — but must grant admission in the interregnum, not wait for the outcome
4. National mission: 25% RTE quota defined as a 'national mission' to secure the preambular objective of equality of status
5. Judicial expediency: Courts must provide efficient and expeditious relief to parents; judicial remedies against school inaction must be redressed immediately
6. Implementation framework: Effective RTE requires schools to publish available seats in advance, transparently process admissions, and provide written reasons for any denial, subject to strict review by educational authorities

Constitutional and statutory framework cited:
- Section 3 RTE Act: Right to free and compulsory elementary education
- Section 6: Duty to establish neighbourhood schools
- Section 7: Sharing of financial responsibilities between Centre and State
- Section 8: Duties of appropriate government
- Section 9: Duties of local authority — including ensuring neighbourhood schools, maintaining records, monitoring admission and completion
- Section 12 (and especially Section 12(1)(c)): Obligation of neighbourhood/unaided schools to admit at least 25% of strength in entry-level class from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups, free of cost
- Section 13: Prohibits screening procedure for admitting children or their parents
- Section 25: Prescribes Pupil-Teacher Ratio of 30:1 for primary schools
- Section 38: Power to make rules
- U.P. RTE Rules, 2011: Rule 7 (non-segregation, non-discrimination of Section 12(1)(c) admittees); Rule 8 (transparent admission process, maintenance and publication of details, written reasons for non-admission)

Five 'duty bearers' framework (cited from Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 56):
1. Appropriate Government — Centre or State (depending on the type of school)
2. Local Authority — Panchayat or Municipality
3. Neighbourhood Schools — including unaided private schools under 25% obligation
4. Parents / Guardians — duty to enrol children
5. Primary School Teachers — duty to provide quality education

About the RTE Act, 2009:
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — operationalises Article 21A of the Constitution
- Article 21A inserted by 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 (effective 1 April 2010) — makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6-14 years
- Article 45 (Directive Principle) — pre-2002 framework; now amended to direct State to provide early childhood care for children below 6
- Article 51A(k) — fundamental duty of parents to provide education to children aged 6-14

Key features of RTE Act:
- Universal access: Free and compulsory education for all children aged 6-14
- 25% reservation in private unaided schools for EWS and disadvantaged groups (Section 12(1)(c))
- Infrastructure standards (Section 19) — schools must meet minimum norms
- Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) of 30:1 for primary; 35:1 for upper primary (Section 25)
- No-screening policy (Section 13) — prohibits screening procedure or capitation fees
- No-detention policy — historically; modified by 2019 amendment to allow detention from Class 5 and 8
- No expulsion before completion of elementary education (Section 16)

Key data points (UDISE+ 2024-25 + Economic Survey 2024-25):
- GER (primary level): 100%+ (near-universal access)
- Drinking water in schools: 99.3% as of 2025
- National PTR for primary: 26:1 (meets 30:1 statutory requirement)
- Transition rate primary to upper primary: 92.2% (Ministry of Education 2025)
- DBT under RTE: ₹2,930 crore disbursed (one-year reference)
- Pro-social behaviour: 12% increase among wealthy students toward lower-income peers in integrated classrooms (Economic Survey 2024-25)

Implementation challenges:
- States struggle with timely reimbursement of private schools for 25% admittees
- Delays and disputes at admission time — judgment addresses this directly
- Quality differentials persist between state-aided and unaided schools
- Drop-out rates remain a concern in higher primary
- Section 12(1)(c) is regularly challenged by private schools — Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs UoI (2012) upheld constitutional validity of 25% RTE quota for non-minority unaided schools but exempted minority unaided schools (later judicial framework)
- Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) — 5-judge SC bench held RTE inapplicable to unaided minority schools per Article 30