Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13490/2024
Case Title: Aadriti Pathak (Minor) Through Her Mother Sadhana Sharma v. GD Goenka Public School & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2025
Brief:
In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to inclusive education, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed GD Goenka Public School, Rohini to readmit Aadriti Pathak, a child with mild autism, to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class, within two weeks. The Court noted that her removal from school was not a voluntary act by the parents but stemmed from the school’s reluctance to provide necessary accommodations as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The Court’s order comes in a writ petition filed by the child through her mother, challenging her discontinuation from the school and seeking relief under the provisions protecting children with special needs.
Background:
- Aadriti Pathak was admitted to GD Goenka Public School in the 2021-22 session.
- In December 2021, she was diagnosed with mild autism. The school was duly informed, and her mother requested support such as a shadow teacher.
- Despite assurances, the school failed to offer the required accommodations, leading to Aadriti’s education being discontinued from January 1, 2023.
- The school claimed that the parents voluntarily withdrew her due to "severe behavioural issues" and non-payment of fees, though fees were paid up till March 2023.
- Attempts to seek admission under the Children With Special Needs (CWSN) quota in the subsequent session were also thwarted. Though initially allotted a seat again in GD Goenka, it was withdrawn at the school’s request, citing lack of vacancy.
Court-Appointed Committee Findings:
Upon direction of the Court, a special board constituted by the Inclusive Education Branch of the DoE assessed the child’s needs. The committee unequivocally held that:
- Aadriti should be reintegrated into the same school, in an age-appropriate class.
- The school must permit her to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
- The institution is duty-bound to make all required accommodations as per the RPwD Act.
School’s Defence & Court’s Analysis:
The school presented multiple defences:
- That the disability was not disclosed at the time of admission.
- There were no vacancies in the relevant class.
- Admission of CWSN students happens via a centralized draw, not direct admission.
However, the Court found these arguments untenable:
- On the issue of non-disclosure, the Court noted that the school had previously acknowledged the diagnosis and agreed to accommodate Aadriti.
- The claim of “no vacancy” was rejected. The Court held that classroom strength is not a rigid barrier and inclusive education is a legally enforceable right, not an administrative discretion.
- Most importantly, the Court rejected the claim of “voluntary withdrawal” and recognized that the child had been pushed out due to an unsupportive environment.
Court’s Directions:
Invoking the spirit and letter of the RPwD Act, 2016, the Court passed the following key directions:
- Readmission of Aadriti to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class within two weeks, as a fee-paying student.
- Permission for the child to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
- The Department of Education (DoE) to monitor the reintegration process and ensure that an inclusive, supportive environment is maintained.
- The school to file a compliance affidavit within four weeks.
Significance:
This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of the right of children with disabilities to equal participation in mainstream education. It puts schools on notice that inclusive education is not optional, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination under the law. The Court has rightly emphasized that administrative technicalities like classroom capacity or centralised processes cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights.
By holding the school and the education department accountable, the Court has sent a clear message—inclusive education is a right, not a favour.
Read the Court Judgement embedded below:
Posted by: Team @ Disability Rights India
For more such case updates and commentary, visit www.disabilityrightsindia.com