Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: LPA 499/2025
Case Title: G.D. Goenka Public School v. Aadriti Pathak & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 23 September 2025
Background
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by G.D. Goenka Public School challenging an earlier order dated 01 July 2025, directing the school to re-admit a child with autism and permit her to study with the assistance of a shadow teacher.
The child, diagnosed with mild autism, had been admitted to the school during the 2021–2022 academic session under the sibling category. Difficulties arose after physical classes resumed following the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the parents, the child began facing behavioural challenges and required additional support in the classroom. They repeatedly requested the school to permit a shadow teacher and provide assistance through a special educator.
However, the parents alleged that the school failed to extend meaningful support and gradually adopted an exclusionary approach towards the child.
The school argued before the Court that the child’s disability had not been disclosed at the time of admission and claimed that her behaviour created safety and classroom management concerns. It also contended that the parents had voluntarily withdrawn her from the school.
During the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, a committee constituted by the Directorate of Education examined the matter and recommended that the child continue in an inclusive educational setting with the support of a shadow teacher. Based on the expert recommendations, the Single Judge directed the school to re-admit the child.
The school then approached the Division Bench challenging that decision.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly the provisions relating to equality, non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation and inclusive education.
The Bench emphasised that the concept of inclusive education under the RPwD Act requires educational institutions to adapt themselves to the needs of children with disabilities, rather than excluding children because of developmental or behavioural differences.
The Court noted that several expert bodies, including specialists from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), had consistently found that the child was capable of studying in a mainstream school environment with appropriate support measures such as a shadow teacher and therapeutic interventions.
Rejecting the objections raised by the school against the expert reports, the Court observed that the multidisciplinary committee’s findings could not be casually disregarded. The Bench also noted that the school counsellor had participated in the assessment process and had signed the report after interacting with both the child and her mother.
Importantly, the Court found that the school had continued to resist accommodating the child despite repeated recommendations from experts. It held that such an approach was inconsistent with the obligations imposed under the RPwD Act and effectively resulted in denial of the child’s statutory rights.
The Bench further clarified that the duties imposed under Section 16 of the RPwD Act are binding not only on government institutions but also on private schools recognised by the Government.
Referring to disability rights jurisprudence, including Avni Prakash v. NTA, the Court reiterated that denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and that inclusive education is closely connected to dignity, equality and meaningful participation in society.
Directions Issued by the Court
- The appeal filed by the school was dismissed.
- The earlier order directing re-admission of the child was upheld.
- The school was directed to comply with the judgment within two weeks.
- The child was permitted to continue her education with the assistance of a shadow teacher and other necessary accommodations.
Commentary
This judgment is an important reaffirmation that private schools cannot evade their legal obligations towards children with disabilities under the RPwD Act.
The ruling recognises a reality frequently experienced by families of children with disabilities — exclusion often occurs not through an express refusal alone, but through sustained institutional resistance, lack of cooperation and refusal to provide accommodations.
By upholding the child’s right to study in a mainstream school with necessary support, the Court reinforced that inclusive education is not a matter of charity or institutional discretion. It is a legally enforceable right flowing from equality, dignity and non-discrimination.
The judgment is also significant for recognising that reasonable accommodation goes beyond ramps and physical accessibility. It includes academic support, behavioural assistance, classroom adaptation and the use of shadow teachers wherever required to facilitate meaningful participation.
At the same time, the case highlights the continuing struggles faced by children with disabilities and their families in enforcing rights already guaranteed by law. The prolonged litigation, repeated expert assessments and continued resistance by the institution underline the gap that still exists between statutory guarantees and practical implementation of inclusive education in India.
No comments:
Post a Comment