School Merger in Uttar Pradesh: A Stark Reflection of State Abdication of Educational Duty Undermining the Constitutional Mandate of Article 21-A and the RTE Act, 2009.

In a regressive policy turn, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has initiated a mass school merger and closure policy, dated 16.06.2025, purportedly aimed at “rationalizing resources” and “improving educational quality.” However, far from advancing the Right to Education, this decision reflects a disturbing abdication of constitutional responsibility by the State. It undermines decades of legislative and judicial progress that culminated in the recognition of education as a justiciable fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Indian Constitution.

The very idea of pairing or merging government schools, as proposed under the impugned policy, is impractical, inequitable, and constitutionally flawed. Unlike the seamless pairing of electronic devices via Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or USB, the concept of “pairing” schools involves complex socio-geographic realities and without any connecting medium. These institutions are often not located in close proximity, and as such, the infrastructure and academic resources of one school cannot be effectively or frequently accessed by students from another.

The policy of pairing or merging schools, in essence, functions as a linguistically softened version of SCHOOL CLOSURE, which not only undermines the principles of accessibility and continuity in education, but also violates the spirit of the doctrine of “parens patriae,” whereby the State is the guardian of its citizens—particularly children. Such a policy is antithetical to the values enshrined in the Preamble and Fundamental Right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution, including Equality of status and opportunity, Justice – social, economic and political.

This blog explores how this policy violates the spirit of constitutional jurisprudence laid down in landmark judgments like Mohini Jain and Unni Krishnan, contradicts Article -21 A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and defeats the foundational principles of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)—India’s flagship universal education program.

The Legal and Historical Context of the Right to Education

1. Judicial Evolution: From Directive to Fundamental Right

Historically, education in India was deeply exclusionary and gender specific, often restricted to the upper castes and socio-economic elites, with no systemic provision for universal access. Under ancient and medieval regimes, including during Muslim rule in the subcontinent, education remained largely religious and informal, and the State did not assume responsibility for its delivery. The seeds of educational reform were sown during British rule, notably with the Hunter Commission (1882), where visionaries like Dadabhai Naoroji and Jyotiba Phule demanded state-sponsored free education for all. The Commission partially acknowledged this demand and emphasized access for all castes and classes. 

The journey toward the constitutionalization of the Right to Education in India began in the early 1990s. In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court held that the right to education is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21. This position was further solidified in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), which held that the State is obligated to provide free education to all children up to the age of 14.

These judgments laid the foundation for the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) which inserted Article 21-A, making the Right to Education a Fundamental Right for children between 6 and 14 years of age.

The first law on compulsory education was enacted in the princely State of Baroda in 1906, covering both boys and girls. In 1937, at the All India National Conference on Education in Wardha, Mahatma Gandhi advocated for a system of basic education grounded in manual and vocational training. The Sargent Plan of 1944, emerging from the Post-War Educational Development Strategy, proposed eight years of free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years. However, despite these progressive milestones, when the Constitution was adopted in 1950, education was not recognised as a fundamental right. It was instead relegated to a Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 45, urging the State to provide free and compulsory education within ten years. The turning point came with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), where the Court held that the Right to Education is implicit in the Right to Life under Article 21. This judgment catalysed a wave of Public Interest Litigations across various High Courts demanding admission for poor and marginalised children.

This legal and social movement culminated in the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, which inserted Article 21-A, making free and compulsory education a fundamental right for all children aged 6 to 14 years.

To operationalize Article 21-A, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted. It mandates universal access to quality elementary education and lays down specific standards such as minimum teacher-pupil ratios, infrastructure norms, and compulsory education for all.

The SSA Framework for Implementation reaffirmed these goals, aiming to bridge gender and social category gaps and enhance learning outcomes. These schemes were not mere welfare measures—they were constitutional mandates to transform India into an inclusive, democratic society.

2. Basic Features of RTE Act, 2009 as per the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan – FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTATION based on the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

The RTE Act, 2009 provides for:

(i) The right of children to free and compulsory education till completion of elementary education in a neighbourhood school.

(ii) It clarifies that ‘compulsory education’ means obligation of the appropriate government to provide free elementary education and ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education to every child in the six to fourteen age group. ‘Free’ means that no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.

(iii) It makes provisions for a non-admitted child to be admitted to an age appropriate class.

(iv) It specifies the duties and responsibilities of appropriate Governments, local authority and parents in providing free and compulsory education, and sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and State Governments.

(v) It lays down the norms and standards relating inter alia to Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs), buildings and infrastructure, school-working days, teacher-working hours.

(vi) It provides for rational deployment of teachers by ensuring that the specified pupil-teacher ratio is maintained for each school, rather than just as an average for the State, or District, or Block, thus ensuring that there is no urban-rural imbalance in teacher postings. It also provides for the prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational work, other than the decennial census, elections to local authority state legislatures and parliament, and disaster relief.

(vii) It provides for the appointment of appropriately trained teachers, i.e., teachers with the requisite entry and academic qualifications.

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)

SSA has been operational since 2000- 2001. With the passage of the RTE Act, changes need to be incorporated into the SSA approach, strategies, and norms. The changes are not merely confined to norms for providing teachers or classrooms, but encompass the vision and approach to elementary education as evidenced in the shift to child entitlements and quality elementary education in regular schools.

Uttar Pradesh’s School Merger Policy: A Constitutional Violation

On June 16, 2025, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued an order to merge or close government primary and upper primary schools with less than 50 student enrollment. This decision, however, lacks any remedial measures to address the core issues of teacher shortages, infrastructure deficits, or quality learning outcomes as envisaged when the RTE Act was implemented in 2010. It is tantamount to withdrawing access to education for thousands of rural and marginalized children.

1. Violation of Article 21-A and the RTE Act

Rather than rectifying systemic failures like poor pupil-teacher ratios and single-teacher schools—identified by both UNESCO and the Government’s own records, The 238th Project Approval Board Meeting (SSA 2016)—the State has chosen a path that punishes students for its administrative inaction. The move directly contravenes the RTE Act, which mandates proximity-based schooling and inclusive access.

2. Ignoring Judicially Recognized Principles

The doctrine of “parens patriae”, under which the State acts as the guardian of its citizens—especially children—has been blatantly violated. In a constitutional framework that draws upon the ideals of socialism—as expressly enshrined in the Preamble—such deprivation effectively prevents citizens from fulfilling their moral and constitutional obligation under Article 51A(k), thereby defeating the very object and spirit of the constitutional mandate. This affirms that citizens are not merely passive recipients of the right to education, but active constitutional stakeholders, whose ability to perform their duties is intrinsically linked to the State’s responsibility to provide affordable, proximate, and quality educational institutions. This is evidenced by the fact that 51 school students, through their natural guardians, filed a writ petition challenging the adverse impact of the school merger policy. 

Data and Reports: The Real Crisis is Not Enrollment, But Governance

UNESCO’s 2021 Report titled “No Teachers, No Class” reveals that:

• Over 1.1 lakh schools in India are single-teacher schools.
• Uttar Pradesh alone had over 3.3 lakh teacher vacancies, with 80% in rural areas.

The 238th Project Approval Board Meeting (SSA 2016) observed that:

• 10,000+ primary schools in UP were single-teacher institutions.
• Over 56% of primary and 19% of upper primary schools had adverse pupil-teacher ratios.
• Enrolment and retention rates were dangerously low, especially among girls and marginalized communities.

Instead of addressing these glaring issues through teacher recruitment and systemic reform, the State has opted for closure—a deeply flawed response to a problem it has long ignored.

Policy Without Process: Undemocratic and Arbitrary

Public education policy must be evidence-based, participatory, and guided by inclusive principles. The policy-making requires a structured process, involving comprehensive data collection, analysis of data, pattern recognition, analysis of underlying causes, and ultimately, consultation with stakeholders to design effective interventions. However, in the present case, no such process was followed. The impugned order has been issued in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without any genuine effort to identify, address, or cure the root causes of low enrolment—such as teacher shortages, poor infrastructure, or lack of academic support. This approach violates settled principles of administrative fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, and amounts to abdication of the State’s constitutional responsibility under Article 21-A.

Socio-Economic Discrimination and Structural Harm

The merger/closure of functional government schools, without the provision of viable and accessible alternatives, severely impairs the capacity of parents/guardians —particularly those belonging to rural, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and economically weaker section students of general category—to discharge the constitutional obligation as mentioned in Article 51A(k). However, the Article 21A and Act of 2009 was enforced only to cater the need of institutionalised education for such kind of children who were due to economic or social or any other kind of disability were not able to get the formal education.  In practical terms, such a policy obstructs the fulfilment of a fundamental civic duty and strikes at the core of the participatory and inclusive vision of the Constitution. School closures force them into long commutes or dropouts, pushing them into child labour or domestic responsibilities.

The chronic failure of the State to timely fill teacher vacancies, resulting in loss of public faith in government schools, the consequent withdrawal of children by poor families, who are then pushed into unorganised labour sectors under the pretext of acquiring practical skills, thereby exacerbating the problem of child labour,

Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Intervention and Policy Reversal

The school merger policy of Uttar Pradesh is not a rationalisation; it is a retraction—a roll-back of hard-won educational rights. It disregards decades of reform, data, jurisprudence, and democratic ideals. It jeopardizes SDG 4 and the constitutional promise of a just, egalitarian, and educated society.

In the words of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in Unni Krishnan:

“It is not enough to say that the State is not preventing anyone from pursuing education. The obligation is to make it available and accessible.”

This blog stands as a reminder that education is not a privilege to be rationed—it is a right to be realized. The need of the hour is not closure but commitment—to quality, inclusion, and constitutional fidelity.

Author 

Chandrasen Yadav
Advocate High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow bench
B.Sc, & L.L.B. from Allahabad University
LL.M from Central University of Punjab