Subtitle: The Court held that neighbourhood residence is an essential eligibility condition under the RTE reserved quota and cannot be relaxed without reliable evidence.
Petition For RTE Admission Dismissed
The Bombay High Court has ruled that RTE admission residence proof is a mandatory requirement for admission under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court dismissed a minor student’s petition after finding that he failed to produce satisfactory RTE admission residence proof showing that he lived within the school’s neighbourhood.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad delivered the judgment on 25 June 2026 in Manas Sandip Sathe, through father Sandip Baburao Sathe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7601 of 2026.
Admission Sought At Podar International School
The petitioner, a minor represented by his father Sandip Baburao Sathe, sought admission to Podar International School, Wagholi, Pune, for the Academic Year 2026-27 under the RTE quota. He requested the Court to direct the school to verify his residential address and accept his application.
Petitioner Claimed Residence Near The School
According to the petitioner, he and his parents had lived in a flat owned by his grandmother since 6 August 2025. The property, situated at Survey No. 56, Samarth Nagar, Aaple Ghar, Kharadi, Pune, was allegedly only 950 metres from the school. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that he fulfilled the neighbourhood criterion prescribed under the RTE scheme.
Authorities Rejected The Application
The education authorities rejected the online admission application on 2 May 2026 because they found the residence proof invalid. Although the petitioner argued that Google Maps had auto-generated an incorrect address, the authorities did not accept the explanation.
The petitioner’s father later challenged the decision before the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. However, the Education Officer dismissed the appeal on 5 May 2026. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education affirmed the decision on 22 May 2026.
High Court Examined The Dispute
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court, claiming that the rejection violated his fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the Court directed the State authorities to conduct a physical inspection of the address mentioned in the admission application. At the same time, it instructed the petitioner’s father to remain present at the premises and produce documents proving that the family ordinarily resided there.
Inspection Raised Serious Doubts
Education Department officials inspected the premises on 19 and 20 June 2026. They submitted detailed reports before the Court. Additionally, the State produced the Aadhaar Cards of the petitioner and his father along with the father’s Voter Identity Card.
According to the inspection reports, the premises contained only one bed on the first floor, while a small eating house functioned on the ground floor. Consequently, the State argued that the property could not be treated as the family’s actual residence.
Court Found No Reliable Proof Of Residence
The Bench examined the inspection reports, photographs, and official documents. It also interacted with the petitioner’s father in court. After considering the evidence, the judges concluded that nothing showed the family ordinarily resided at the claimed address.
Moreover, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce independent documents such as electricity bills, water bills, gas connection records, ration cards, bank correspondence, or other records establishing continuous residence.
The Court also rejected the argument that an auto-generated Google Maps error explained the discrepancy. Instead, it held that the burden of proving residential eligibility always rests on the applicant.
Address Inconsistencies Weakened The Case
The Bench noticed several inconsistencies in the documents submitted by the petitioner.
For example, the admission form referred to one address in Samarth Nagar, while the leave and licence agreement mentioned a different description of the same locality. Furthermore, the Aadhaar Cards carried an address at Vighnaharta Palace, Manjari Budruk, Pune. Meanwhile, the father’s Voter Identity Card showed an address in Amarapur, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.
As a result, the Court found that the documents did not consistently establish the petitioner’s residence near the school.
Residence Requirement Is Mandatory
The High Court held that the authorities acted lawfully in rejecting the application because the petitioner failed to establish RTE admission residence proof through reliable evidence.
Furthermore, the Bench clarified that the neighbourhood residence requirement is not a mere procedural formality. Rather, it is an essential eligibility condition governing admissions under the reserved RTE quota.
The Court also observed that relaxing this requirement without satisfactory proof would undermine the statutory scheme. More importantly, it could deprive another deserving child who genuinely satisfies the neighbourhood criterion of admission.
Petition Dismissed
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition after finding no merit in the challenge. However, the Bench made no order as to costs.
