Private schools can't deny admission to children with disability. They are legally bound to admit them
In July 2025, the Delhi High Court directed a private school in Delhi to re-admit a Class I student with autism who had previously been denied admission due to her disability. While the child was enrolled, the school raised concerns about her behaviour and repeatedly urged the family to withdraw her, which eventually led to her exit. However, when the parents later sought re-admission, the school refused, again citing her behaviour, despite being aware of her disability. In this current case, the Court not only ordered the child's re-admission but also directed the school to provide her with the necessary support to access her education (Aadriti Pathak vs GD Goenka Public School).
The instances that led to the case show that the legal protections for children with disabilities remain poorly understood. The private schools continue to violate these rights with little accountability, and parents, often unaware of the protections available, are left to navigate the consequences. This also happens due to the misconception that the responsibility to support children with disabilities lies solely with government schools, and not private institutions.
This assumption doesn't stand the legal scrutiny. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWDA) is a dedicated legislation for the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities in India, which includes the right to inclusive education. In particular, Section 16(i) of the RPWDA mandates that all schools — both public and private, recognised by government and local authorities — admit children with disabilities without discrimination. Section 16 also requires all schools to make their premises and facilities accessible and provide necessary accommodations based on the child's individual needs. Thus, private schools have binding obligations towards children with disabilities.
Another widespread misconception is that children with disabilities are meant to study only in 'special schools' designed exclusively for them. The RPWDA firmly rejects this idea. It establishes that every child with a disability has the right to inclusive education, which means a system where children with and without disabilities learn together. Therefore, schools do not have the discretion to direct parents towards special schools or suggest that children with disabilities do not belong in 'regular' classrooms. In fact, Section 12(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, mandates that private schools reserve 25 per cent of entry-level seats for children from disadvantaged groups.
While these legal provisions exist on paper, their violations are common. Numerous complaints filed by parents reveal how routinely schools deny admission to children with disabilities. In The Child vs State of Tamil Nadu (2023), a case similar to that of Aadriti Pathak, the Madras High Court directed a school to admit a child with autism after it had initially refused admission due to the unavailability of a special educator. Complaints submitted to the Chief and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities also highlight the scale of the issue, where schools continue to cite lack of infrastructure or trained staff as reasons for denying admission.
To put an end to such rampant violations and ensure that the law is meaningfully enforced, both parents and schools must be aware that these legal provisions are non-negotiable. Failure to comply can lead to consequences such as fines, loss of recognition of the school and judicial directions to comply with the law. Interestingly, remedies for denial of admission have also been observed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In Sneh Lata vs Bal Bharti Public School (2023), the Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the school to pay compensation of Rs 25,000 to parents for denying admission to their child with a hearing impairment.
When legal rights are not widely known, violations go unchallenged, and those responsible remain complacent. This is especially true for children with disabilities, many of whom, particularly those with invisible disabilities like autism, go unidentified, and their entitlements are never exercised. As the law and policy landscape gradually shifts toward inclusion, it's time for the public to do its part: Stay informed, demand accountability, and ensure that no child is left behind simply because no one knew their right ever existed.
The writer is a research fellow at Vidhi Legal Centre
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Indian Railways done well to incorporate Braille signage in coaches. But a lot more needs doing
Written by Praveen Kumar G During a recent journey in an A1 coach on the Karnataka Express train, I encountered a telling example of how accessibility for blind passengers is often treated as an afterthought. While there was some information provided in Braille — such as berth numbers and alarm details — the implementation was far from user-friendly. The Braille plates were positioned in such a way that they were partially obscured by fixed luggage racks, making them difficult to locate and read. This is not merely a matter of inconvenience; for many travellers with visual disabilities, it is the difference between being able to navigate independently and having to rely on others. What was even more concerning was the absence of vital information in Braille. Critical details such as emergency safety instructions, contact numbers of train attendants, cleaning service information, and procedures for seeking assistance were nowhere to be found in accessible formats. This approach — providing only partial and poorly positioned information — undermines the very purpose of accessibility. It is a piecemeal effort that signals compliance in appearance, but not in substance. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) is explicit: Persons with disabilities are entitled to equal access to information, facilities, and services without discrimination. Section 42 of the Act mandates that all service providers take steps to ensure that information is available in accessible formats, including Braille, audio, and electronic text. Indian Railways, as a public service provider, is legally and morally bound to implement these provisions fully. Partial compliance — such as offering only berth numbers in Braille — falls short of the law's intent. Inaccessible safety information can put blind passengers at direct risk during emergencies. Lack of contact details for attendants can leave passengers stranded without timely assistance. Accessibility is not a courtesy; it is a right that ensures dignity, independence, and safety. It is commendable that Indian Railways has begun incorporating Braille signage in coaches, but the execution must improve dramatically. Authorities should provide complete travel-related information in Braille — safety instructions, contact numbers, complaint procedures, and service information. They must ensure logical and accessible placement of Braille signage — away from obstructions like luggage racks. Use multiple accessible formats — including audio announcements and QR codes linked to screen-reader-friendly information. Accessibility should not be a box-ticking exercise. The RPwD Act provides a strong legal mandate — what is needed now is serious implementation with empathy, consultation with passengers with disabilities, and regular audits for compliance. For India's transport systems to truly serve all citizens, accessibility must move from being symbolic to being substantive, comprehensive, and rights-based. The writer is VSO international social accessibility advisor
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Business Standard
No stray dogs in Delhi? SC target challenges MCD's funds and capacity
The Supreme Court's directive to remove stray dogs from Delhi's streets, sterilise them, and relocate them permanently to shelters has triggered one of the capital's largest animal control drives in decades. In its order on Monday, the apex court instructed the capture of 5,000 stray dogs from 'high-risk areas' within six to eight weeks. The animals are to be housed in shelters with adequate staffing, CCTV surveillance, and helplines. The court barred the re-release of sterilised dogs — a departure from the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which require returning them to their original locations. But this leads to a question — can the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) manage this exercise within the time frame decided by the Supreme Court? And why dog sterilisation efforts in the past faced roadblocks. How many stray dogs are there in Delhi? While the Supreme Court pegged the initial removal target at 5,000, it did not clarify the basis for the figure. In Delhi, the last formal dog census by the MCD was conducted in 2009, when the stray dog count was recorded at approximately 560,000. Since then, no comprehensive survey has been done. According to a report in The Times of India, a census for stray dogs was conducted in 2016 by the then South Delhi Municipal Corporation, counting 1,89,285 strays in its four zones. Of these, only 27.87 per cent of females and 40.03 per cent of males were sterilised. The MCD admitted in court that updated population data was necessary to assess the impact of existing ABC efforts. Animal birth control centre in Delhi: Capacity gap looms large Delhi currently lists 20 ABC centres in areas such as Rohini, Timarpur, Dwarka, Tughlaqabad, Usmanpur, and Bijwasan, with a combined capacity of 3,500–4,000 dogs at a time, according to MCD Standing Committee minutes from last month. According to MCD figures cited in an October 2024 Times of India report, the civic body told the Delhi High Court that, at the time, only 11 NGOs and four veterinary doctors were working across the city's 250 municipal wards, and just 46,600 strays had been vaccinated by the end of July 2024 — far short of the coverage needed. In the same report, the MCD stated that a sterilisation rate of 70–80 per cent was essential to control the stray population effectively. How many dogs sterilised this year Between January 25 and June 25, 2025, the MCD has sterilised and vaccinated 65,031 dogs. The corporation projects 97,994 surgeries between April 2024 and December 2025 — up from 79,959 in 2023–24 and 59,076 in 2022–23 — but still below the threshold for population stabilisation. Animal welfare groups, such as Nyaya Bhoomi, have accused the MCD of underperforming and even over-reporting sterilisation numbers. In 2024, the Delhi High Court asked MCD to provide a more concrete plan to curb the stray population after finding its affidavit inadequate. Does MCD have the capacity to house stray dogs? Until now, sterilised dogs have been released to their original locations — a practice the Supreme Court has now barred. The MCD has proposed building 12 permanent shelters, one in each zone, but no capital expenditure has yet been approved. How much does it cost to sterilise a stray dog? Delhi's reimbursement rates for sterilisation and immunisation have not been updated since May 2021: ₹1,000 per dog when NGOs or private veterinary teams handle catching, surgery, and release. ₹900 per dog when the Municipal Corporation does the catching. Last week, the Centre revised its ABC scheme, offering ₹800 per dog plus a one-time ₹2 crore grant for veterinary hospital infrastructure. This falls below both Delhi's 2021 rate and current local cost estimates in other cities. Meanwhile, last month, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) proposed raising its sterilisation-plus-feeding payment to ₹1,650 per dog, up from ₹976, citing alignment with ABC 2023 rules. The funding gap is stark: For the Supreme Court's immediate 5,000-dog target, the extra cost of paying ₹1,650 instead of Delhi's ?1,000 is ₹32.5 lakh more. For Delhi's projected 97,994 sterilisations by the end of 2025, the difference is ₹63.7 crore more than current allocations, excluding shelter construction and operating costs. This gap shows that even with the Centre's revised funding, Delhi would still be operating far below what some cities now consider a realistic per-dog cost under the ABC 2023 framework. Beyond numbers A recent report by ThePrint pointed out bigger issues with Delhi's ABC programme on an operational level. Their visits to six sterilisation centres found unhygienic and unsafe conditions, failure to follow required procedures, denial of access at one site, and even abuse of animals at another. The report argued that such neglect undermines the humane control of strays, especially as the city government pursues controversial relocation plans opposed by animal rights groups. According to a Hindustan Times report, several animal welfare experts and activists have warned that forcibly removing community dogs could: Violate ABC Rules, 2023, by not returning sterilised dogs to their areas. Be impractical given the large stray population and lack of shelter space. Cause animal suffering by breaking up established packs. Fail to address root causes such as lack of feeding points and poor public awareness. Trigger territorial conflicts in relocation areas. Bottom line With less than six weeks to comply, the MCD must not only expand shelter capacity and align funding with realistic per-dog costs, but also address long-standing structural gaps — from limited manpower and outdated data to weak oversight, poor facility conditions, and deep disagreement over whether mass removals are lawful or humane.
Time of India
10-08-2025
- Time of India
Ex RCom employee wins alimony case against first wife due to financial distress and despite second marriage and property sale
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills How did this maintenance (alimony) case start? March 22, 1978: The marriage happens. The marriage happens. November 24, 1986: First son is born. First son is born. May 11, 1986: Second son is born. Second son is born. 1987: Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons. Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons. 2003: A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them. A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them. July 2014: Wife retires from her school teaching job. Wife retires from her school teaching job. 2017: Husband retires from his job. Husband retires from his job. February 24, 2021: Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy. Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy. February 8, 2023: Family court dismissed wife's application under Section 24 for interim maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month, and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 1,00,000. Wife filed the alimony case only when she came to know about the husband's second marriage and property deal 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. "In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (husband) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.' Wife has adequate financial resources to support her 'It stands placed on record that the Appellant (wife) is in possession of matured LIC policies in her name. The Appellant (wife) is also residing with her two sons, both of whom appear to be gainfully employed. Though there appears to be some whatsapp chats of the year 2020 and 2021 where one of the sons was asking for money, the income affidavit of the appellant suggests that both sons are having independent income.' 'It was also stated by the counsel that both sons are independently earning. In light of these facts, it appears that the Appellant (wife) has adequate financial resources and support systems available to her.' Wife is lying about her finances The Appellant's (wife) claim that she is sustaining herself on donations from her former students does not appear to be supported by any evidence. The fact that various sums were deposited by unrelated persons, without necessary proof in support, cuts no ice in favour of either of the parties. However, it clearly leads us to conclude that the Appellant (wife) has some source of income to enable her to take care of herself. Delhi High Court's investigation: Husband is living off loans given by brother and friend 'This Court notes the submission advanced on behalf of Respondent (husband), who is stated to be more than 70 years of age, rendering him unfit for any gainful employment.' 'It is further brought on record that the Respondent (husband) was previously employed with Reliance Communication till 2017; however, owing to the company's financial collapse and subsequent insolvency proceedings, he was deprived of all retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues.' 'In addition, as evident from the reply to the appeal filed by the Respondent (husband) before this Court, it emerges that the Respondent has had to borrow substantial sums - Rs 10,00,000 from his brother and Rs 13,00,000 from a friend, for the purpose of meeting his basic living expenses. These liabilities, incurred solely for sustenance, remain outstanding and unpaid, owing to the Respondent's (husband) continuing financial incapacity.' Delhi High Court final judgement: No maintenance for wife 'In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and in the absence of any persuasive evidence justifying the Appellant's (wife) claim of the interim maintenance, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent (husband) should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained.' 'In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant (wife) is sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant (wife) under Section 24 of the Act.' 'We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order do not tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case that is pending before the learned Family Court.' What did Delhi High Court say about Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act? Before embarking upon the merits of the appeal, it is apposite to examine the legislative intent underlying Section 24 of the Act. The primary object of this provision is to ensure that in matrimonial proceedings, the spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain themselves or to meet the expenses of the proceedings is not placed at a procedural disadvantage. The law ensures that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. The invocation of Section 24 is not to be construed as an automatic entitlement. The discretion conferred upon the Court under this provision is wide, and must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the financial standing, independent income, and overall circumstances of both parties. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur6 , and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain. On August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a demand for Rs 60,000 in monthly maintenance (alimony) from a wife who worked as a senior teacher in a reputed secondary school in New Delhi. The court held that she couldn't claim alimony from her husband since it was proved that she had some source of income while her husband's financial, physical and emotional conditions were visibly husband's lawyers told Delhi High Court: 'The Respondent (husband), aged around 73 years, was formerly employed with Reliance Communication, where he served until his retirement in the year 2017. It is stated that, owing to the financial collapse and insolvency of the said company, he was deprived of his retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues. The Respondent (husband) contends that he is unemployed, and is devoid of any independent source of income.'Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that the wife filed this maintenance (alimony) case only after she found out about her estranged husband's second marriage and the sale of his Delhi High Court looked into this and found : 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (wife) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.'The Delhi High Court also uncovered more lies from the wife. Keep reading to see the legal reasoning the High Court used to rule in favour of the to the order of Delhi High Court dated August 4, 2025, here's the timeline of events:She filed an appeal in Delhi High Court after Delhi High Court said:Delhi HC said:Also read: Divorce case: Wife's WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court Delhi HC said:Question of law answered by Delhi High Court: 'The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the rejection of the claim for maintenance pendente lite (during litigation) and expenses of proceedings made by the Appellant under Section 24 of the Act.'The Delhi High Court said:(no part of the judge's judgement has been altered or changed)Delhi High Court said: 'In the present case, it is clear that the Respondent's financial frailty, compounded by his advanced age, and loss of post-retirement entitlements, weighs significantly against imposing any further pecuniary obligation upon him.'Delhi HC said:The High Court said:'Section 24 is to ensure basic sustenance during litigation, not to impose undue financial burden or to match the lifestyle of the other spouse. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Section 24 is not intended to act as a substitute for maintenance obligations under personal law. Rather, it is confined to the grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses of litigation in the course of matrimonial proceedings. Importantly, the statute contemplates applications from either spouse, and in no manner exempts the applicant from demonstrating genuine financial distress.'
