– Shivani Chaturvedi (Chennai)

Private unaided (including matriculation and higher secondary) schools across Tamil Nadu have voiced strong objection to an October 2 directive from the state’s education department directing them to “reclassify” children admitted into class I under s.12 (1) (c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009, and to reimburse fees collected from them within seven days.

Under s.12 (1) (c) private unaided (and aided) day schools are obliged to reserve 25 percent of available capacity in class I for poor children in their neighbourhood and retain them in school until completion of class VIII. Under s.12 (2) of the Act, the tuition fees of poor children thus admitted are payable by state government in full or part.

Currently there are 12,600 recognised private unaided schools in the state with an aggregate enrolment of 5.7 million children. Since schools established by religious and linguistic minorities (and boarding schools) were exempted from the provisions of s.12 (1) (c) by a Supreme Court judgement of 2012 (Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India & Anr), the number of unaided day schools that admitted poor neighbourhood children in 2025-26 numbered 7,717 and 70,449 children.

According to monitors of K-12 education in Chennai, the government directive to “regularise already admitted students” means that if a child already studying in LKG or class 1 qualifies for the RTE quota, the school must now “reclassify” that child as a s.12 (1) (c) admittee, the fees must be stopped, and whatever fees the school has already collected including for books, uniforms or tuition, must be refunded. Essentially, instead of offering the s.12 (1) (c) benefit to new children this year, schools are required to extend it to already enrolled and eligible children. Evidently it has come to the notice of government that some children have been admitted under s.12 (1) (c) and fees have been paid by them.

However, private school associations have expressed dismay, contending that the directive has been issued midway through the term when operational and financial commitments had already been made. “By the time this directive came, we had finalised admissions, paid for materials and begun classes,” says a Chennai-based private school principal not wishing to be quoted. “Now we are being told to refund fees immediately, with no clarity on when reimbursements under s.12 (2) will reach us. This is not practical.”

There is substance in this complaint because state governments countrywide are tardy about reimbursing private school fees payable by them under s.12 (2). “Reimbursements under s.12 (2) are substantial. Nearly Rs.714 crore from the academic year 2023-24 is still pending, in addition to approximately Rs.500 crore for 2024-25. Prolonged delay in reimbursing schools fees for admitting poor children free-of-charge has severely strained schools’ finances, making sudden refund mandates difficult to implement. We are not against the s.12 (1) (c) mandate. We are against unpredictable changes that disrupt planning and place undue financial strain on institutions trying to comply,” says advocate M.J. John Arokia Prabhu, vice president of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association.

Moreover, the timing of the regularisation directive has raised eyebrows in the academy. With assembly elections scheduled for early 2026, many academics interpret this directive as a populist move aimed at showing quick benefit delivery to low-income families, who had been coerced into paying admission and tuition fees. “While the government’s move may seem administratively sound, it alters the original spirit of the RTE Act,” says K. Rajendran, president of a private school association in Madurai district. “The goal of s.12 (1) (c) was to continuously increase the number of children from disadvantaged families into private schools. Regularising children already admitted reduces opportunities for other poor children.”

Meanwhile, the controversy has reached the judiciary. In a contempt petition filed in the Madras high court, government counsel informed Justice Dhandayuthapani that RTE funds for s.12 (2) reimbursement have already been released but more time is needed to transfer them to schools through the state’s education ministry. The court granted the government a two-week extension and adjourned the case to November 7.

As the state awaits the court’s next hearing, the dispute underscores a recurring concern — the widening gap between RTE Act provisions and on-ground execution.