Delhi High Court Directs GD Goenka Public School to Readmit Child with Autism; Emphasizes Enforceable Right to Inclusive Education

Court: High Court of Delhi
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 Though initially allotted a seat again in GD Goenka, it was withdrawn at the school’s request, citing lack of vacancy.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:

1. That the disability was not disclosed at the time of admission.
2. There were no vacancies in the relevant class.
3. 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:

1. Readmission of Aadriti to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class within two weeks, as a fee-paying student.
2. Permission for the child to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
3. The Department of Education (DoE) to monitor the reintegration process and ensure that an inclusive, supportive environment is maintained.
4. 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

MP High Court Seeks Response on PIL Demanding Special Educators in Private Schools Across Jabalpur

Court: MP High Court at Jabalpur
Case Title: Saurabh Subbiah Vs Union Of India And Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16753 of 2025

Date of Hearing: 17 June 2025
Next Date of Hearing: 22 July 2025

Introduction:

In a significant move for inclusive education and disability rights, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice to the Centre and State authorities on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of special educators in private schools across Jabalpur city.

The PIL, filed by petitioner Saurabh Subbiah, draws attention to the lack of compliance with mandatory legal provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and schemes such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan—all of which collectively mandate the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular school settings, supported by trained special educators and appropriate infrastructure.

Court Proceedings:

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf heard the matter on June 17, 2025, and issued notice to the respondents. The notice was accepted by counsel appearing for the Union of India and for the state authorities. Upon request, the court granted time for the respondents to file their replies. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 22, 2025. [Read the Court Order dt 17 June 2025 here (PDF 69 KB)]

Key Allegations:

The petitioner has asserted that:

• Even prestigious private schools in Jabalpur lack basic infrastructure and do not have special educators.
• There is a clear failure to implement the statutory mandates that protect the rights of children with disabilities.
• This non-compliance undermines inclusive education, which is not only a policy priority but a legal obligation.

The plea highlights an “eminent need” for trained personnel and infrastructural support for children with disabilities, and argues that meaningful inclusion in mainstream schools cannot happen without systemic enforcement of these mandates.

Reliefs Sought:

The petitioner seeks directions from the High Court to:

• Ensure strict compliance with relevant disability rights laws.
• Mandate the appointment of special educators in every private school in Jabalpur city.
• Ensure the provision of inclusive infrastructure in accordance with legal and policy frameworks.

Echoes of the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment:

This case is part of a broader struggle for enforcement of inclusive education mandates. In the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, the Apex Court had already emphasized the systemic gaps and non-implementation of laws relating to inclusive education. In its detailed judgment delivered on 28 October 2021, the three-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar held that:

“The lack of trained special educators and appropriate infrastructure is a serious impediment to the enforcement of the fundamental right to education for children with disabilities.”

The Supreme Court had called for time-bound action plans, setting up of monitoring cells, and periodic audits to ensure implementation of inclusive education mandates.

Read our full coverage of the Supreme Court judgment here:
🔗 Supreme Court Calls for Systemic Reform in Inclusive Education (October 2021)

Why This PIL Matters:

Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention nearly four years ago, ground-level implementation continues to falter. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s action signals the judiciary’s continued role in upholding the rights of children with disabilities, especially when executive inaction persists.

This PIL could have far-reaching implications—not just for Jabalpur, but for private schools across India, many of which continue to sidestep their statutory responsibilities under the RPWD Act and RTE Act.

---

We will continue to track developments in this matter and share updates following the next hearing.

📝 For more updates on disability rights litigation and policy, stay tuned to Disability Rights India.