Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed against GD Goenka school for re-admission of a child with mild autism, a Single Judge bench of Vikas Mahajan, J*, opined that the statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’) are enforceable duties which are meant to ensure full and effective participation of children with disabilities in all walks of life, particularly in education. The Court also directed GD Goenka to re-admit the petitioner, who was suffering from mild autism, in Class I or any age-appropriate class.
Background
In the instant case the petitioner was admitted to the GD Goenka school in 2021 under the ‘sibling clause’. In December 2021, the petitioner was diagnosed with mild autism and that information was shared with the school once the school reopened in April 2022, after the lockdown imposed due to spread of COVID-19 was lifted.
The administration of GD Goenka raised concerns regarding behavioural issues displayed by the petitioner and repeatedly suggested that the petitioner be withdrawn from school. The suggestion made by the parents for a shadow teacher was met with silence. Due to constant pressure and lack of support from the school, the education of the petitioner had been discontinued from 1-1-2023, however, it was claimed that fee of the petitioner was paid till March 2023.
The petitioner had sent a legal notice to the Principal of GD Goenka asking her to allow the petitioner to resume her classes in Class I from academic year 2024-2025 and that she may be allowed all facilities that are provided to persons with disabilities.
The petitioner’s parents had also tried to apply for admission under ‘Children with Special Needs’ (CWSN) category through the Directorate of Education. However, the petitioner was again allotted GD Goenka School which refused her admission stating that the petitioner was already enrolled under the general category, but she showed aggressive and unpredictable behaviour.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that GD Goenka had contended that the petitioner’s parents had voluntarily withdrawn the petitioner and she had not attended school for one complete academic session i.e. 2023-2024. However, GD Goenka’s response to the legal notice sent by the petitioner’s parents as well as the order dated 19-2-2025 made it evident that the petitioner had to stop attending school from January 2023 not because of a desire to withdraw, but due to the school’s unwillingness to meaningfully accommodate her evolving needs.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had been fully diagnosed with mild autism only after her admission and therefore the question of non-disclosure by the petitioner’s parents did not arise.
The Court rejected the argument raised by GD Goenka that they had no vacancy in Class I in either general or CWSN category and stated that the school could not be allowed to defeat the petitioner’s right to inclusive education by raising technical issues.
The Court further noted that Section 16 of the RPwD Act makes it obligatory on part of appropriate government and local authorities to make an endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognized by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities. It further provides that to achieve said end, the schools shall admit such children without discrimination and provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others. It is also mandatory for the educational institutions to provide necessary support individualized or otherwise in environments that maximize academic and social development.
Furthermore, Section 16(vii) of the RwPD Act makes it obligatory on part of the educational institutions to monitor participation, progress in terms of the attainment levels and completion of education in respect of every student with disability. Likewise, the said provision makes it imperative for the educational institutions to provide transport facilities to the children with disabilities, as well as, for the attendant of the children with disabilities having high support needs.
Thus, the Court noted that the right to inclusive education under the RwPD is not a symbolic, but an enforceable right and no child can be deprived of it merely due to institutional unwillingness to adapt.
The Court relied on the report prepared by a Board appointed by the Inclusive Education Branch of the Directorate of Education which suggested that the petitioner must be integrated into the school community where she can flourish in the right environment. The Court opined that the petitioner’s behaviour should have triggered support from the school rather than apprehension and the school’s response seemed to be one of distancing that effectively led to deprivation of the petitioner’s statutory rights without a justifiable premise. The Court stated that the actions of the school revealed an institutional approach that failed to evolve in consonance with the needs of the petitioner as a person with disabilities.
Accordingly, the Court directed GD Goenka school to re-admit the petitioner in Class I or any age-appropriate class as a fee-paying student within two weeks from date of the judgement. The petitioner was also permitted to attend school with the assistance of a parent-appointed shadow teacher subject to the school’s basic norms of decorum and safety. The Directorate of Education was directed to monitor the reintegration of the petitioner and to ensure that the school provided an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment in accordance with Sections 3 and 16 of the RwPD Act.
[Aadriti Pathak v. GD Goenka Public School, WP (C) No. 13490 of 2024, decided on 1-7-2025]
Judgement authored by- Justice Vikas Mahajan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ashok Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, Manoj Kumar, Ashna Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Kamal Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Abhinav Sharma, Aakriti Jain, Advocates
