India’s legal system is founded on constitutional morality and social justice, and is concerned with balancing competing claims of individual rights and collective identities. Education, as a constitutional right^[i] brings together many facets of identity (caste, religion, gender, language, and socioeconomic status), making it a site of valuable reconciliation. This blog examines how intersectionality shapes the debate on the Right to Education (RTE) for minorities in India. It discusses the implications of affirmative action as a constitutional and social instrument to equalize educational experiences potentially.

Conceptualizing Minority

Generally, people understand that when a population is divided on any issue or any characteristic, it usually produces a larger group and a smaller group. The larger one is called the majority, and the other subgroup is called the minority. Nevertheless, this meaning of minorities is not fully valid in international law. There are possibilities that those two groups could be of equal strength, or the smaller sub-group may have control over power.  Being larger in numbers does not necessarily mean that a community cannot be under oppression by a smaller community. Apartheid was prevalent in South Africa mostly, who faced discrimination and oppression by the Whites. Therefore, numerical strength or weakness is not the deciding factor for a group to be called a minority or majority. Scholars and organizations have made attempts to fill the gap within but the fact is that there is no definition of the term minority, the world could agree upon.^[ii] In 1977, Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Francesco Capotorti, defined minority as, 

“A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a nondominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.”^[iii]

Layers of Inequality: Decoding Intersectionality in Indian Law

The notion of intersectionality presented by Kimberle Crenshaw^[iv] implies that systems of discrimination are connected and cannot be examined alone, and in the Indian context, the experience of being a Dalit Muslim girl accessing education cannot be fully understood as a sole case of gender, caste, or religion, but through the intersection of all three.

Increasingly, the Indian legal framework has recognized the significance of intersectionality, especially in the context of education policies, where marginalized communities can fall through between the cracks of policies and schemes created with benevolent intentions. The Supreme Court, in several judgments, has advocated for the need for substantive equality^[v] rather than formal equality^[vi] when considering the lived experiences of historically marginalized groups.^[vii]

Education & Equality: India’s Constitutional Promise to Minorities

Right to Education as a Fundamental Right

Article 21-A^[viii] The Constitution of India mandates free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years. This provision, introduced by the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, 2002, is consistent with India’s commitment to ensure all-encompassing development.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009^[ix] (RTE Act), implements Article 21-A and places obligations on the state and private entities to admit children from weaker and disadvantaged sections without any discrimination.^[x]

Rights of Minorities in Education

Articles 29 and 30 provide rights to minorities to lead cultural and educational activities. Article 29^[xi] provides protection of the interests of any section of citizens, identifiable, with a distinct language, script or culture. Article 30^[xii] specifically provides the right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka the court held that minority rights under Article 30 are not absolute and subject to reasonable regulation to ensure the worthiness of the institution, academic excellence, and to maintain social integration.^[xiii]

Affirmative Action: A Constitutional Solution

Affirmative action, in the form of reservation in educational institutions, originates from Article 15(4) and 15(5) of the Constitution. “Article 15(4)^[xiv] states that the state may make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. To do so, Article 15(5)^[xv] allows for a similar design for admissions to private educational institutions, whether aided or unassisted.” In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, it was held that the provisions allowing OBC reservations in titling higher educational institutions’ constitutional validity, advocated affirmative action policy as a necessary method to achieve substantive equality.^[xvi]

Margins and Minority Education

Religious Minorities and Disadvantaged Access

According to the Sachar Committee Report (2006), educational indicators for Muslims in India are significantly worse than for other marginalised religious groups (or communities), with low enrolment rates and high dropout rates.^[xvii] The overwhelming disadvantage experienced by Muslims, when placed in intersectionality with gender and class disadvantage, leading to their continued marginalization, is significant.

Though Article 30(1) doesn’t restrict a minority from establishing its educational institutions, in real terms, most educational institutions established by these minorities are unrewarded and undervalued. On top of that, the RTE Act’s guaranteed 25% component under Section 12(1)(c) seldom reaches the minority dominant regions even when known, due to a lack of awareness of the entitlement, bureaucratic issues of form-filling and most obviously, social stigma. For example, In states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where there is a significant concentration of Muslim and Dalit populations, studies have shown that awareness about the 25% RTE quota under Section 12(1)(c) is extremely low among minority families. Even when families are aware, the requirement to submit caste certificates, income proofs, and digital form-filling, often in English or non-local languages—creates insurmountable procedural hurdles. A 2019 field study by the Centre for Policy Research noted that many Muslim parents were reluctant to apply due to fears of discrimination, or because they believed “private schools are not for people like us.”^[xviii]

Linguistic Minorities and Identity Assertion

The Supreme Court in D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab indicates that minority rights under Article 30 include the right to select a medium of instruction, indicative of linguistic identity.^[xix] In practice, however, linguistic minorities are pressured to assimilate, especially in states that have a regional language that all aspire to enforce, and this results in both cultural alienation and educational disadvantage.

Structural Challenges in the Realization of Educational Rights for Minorities

Despite the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 21-A, 15(4), 15(5), and 30 of the Indian Constitution, and a progressive judicial trend in safeguarding educational rights, the intersection of minority identity and access to quality education remains deeply compromised. This incongruity between legal promise and ground reality can be attributed to three interlinked systemic failures: ineffective implementation, resource disparities and the contested narrative of meritocracy within affirmative action frameworks.

Implementation Deficit: Between Constitutional Promise and Policy Execution

Even though the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 requires that 25% of seats in unaided private schools be set aside for children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups (Section 12(1)(c)), in reality, the implementation of this provision, especially among minority groups, remains very low. Field reports and research have revealed a widespread lack of awareness among minority communities, especially in semi-urban and rural contexts, regarding the benefits available to them under the RTE legislation.^[xx]

Moreover, institutional resistance from private educational institutions – whether through non-compliance, failure to reimburse governments promptly, or opaque admissions practices – has effectively weakened the operation of the RTE quota. Thus far, there have been no enforceable sanctions or penalties that could ensure compliance, resulting in actual non-compliance that cannot merely be enforced but normalization of the difference between rights on paper and rights in practice.

From a constitutional context, this implementation failure has far-reaching effects on the realization of a substantive equality standard, which the Supreme Court has articulated in Section 93: State of Kerala v.N.M. Thomas^[xxi]. The inability to secure de facto access for minority children is as much a manifestation of administrative neglect of affirmative constitutional duties as it is a failure in non-compliance.

The Merit versus Affirmative Action Debate

A common objection to affirmative action in higher education, especially on the topic of reservations or scholarships for underrepresented groups, is that it is undermining “meritocracy.” Moral outrage is most often on the basis that institutional standards are compromised, or worse, that feminism, indigenous rights, or anti-racism encourage mediocrity. This sort of comparative insinuation is also founded on a misunderstanding that ignores inequalities in the environment in which educational opportunities are structured.

Merit, as operationalized through standardized testing and achieved through higher education admission standards, assumes the processes to be equitable. Yet, the impact of cumulative disadvantage for students from underrepresented communities (ex.: poor early childhood education, parents who themselves cannot read, available economic time to study during school, systemic social stigma) is disallowed from primary consideration. In this atmosphere, affirmative action should be viewed as a necessary corrective for educational inequality that prevents students from an equal starting point.

In consideration of the proof points laid out, it is worth noting that the judiciary has accepted this premise in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) because “Equality of educational opportunity cannot be accomplished only through formal neutrality; it must be supplemented with compensatory equality.”^[xxii] Likewise, special measures for education concerning the rights of historically marginalized peoples are mentioned in international human rights agreements, such as the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960), and align with domestic direction on affirmative action.

Bridging the Gaps: Policy Directives to Realize Educational Equality

To address the intersectional barriers faced by minorities in accessing education, the following targeted policy measures are proposed:

1. Incorporate Intersectional Data Collection

The national education surveys (e.g., UDISE+, ASER) should also record composite variables      such as caste, religion, gender, disability, and income so stakeholders can undertake differentiated interventions to disadvantaged or historically excluded populations in education and make targeted claims. If develop the policy may be more responsive to educationally disadvantaged populations and lead to substantive equality within the meaning of Article 15(4).

2. Provide Public-Private Partnership Models to Minority Institutions

Constructing publicly funded public-private partnership and corporate social responsibility received grant schemes to improve infrastructure within minority institutions, where the intent is to enhance existing infrastructure to facilitate learning, but not impinge on minority institutions’ autonomy under Article 30(1).

3. Institute Diversity Audits of Private Schools

Every private institution that is subject to Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act should be required to maintain an annual diversity and inclusion audit annually as a means of ensuring compliance, promoting transparency, and reducing systemic exclusion.

4. Implement Multilingual Legal Awareness Campaigns

     Implementing multilingual campaigns within minority communities to make them aware of their right to education under Articles 21-A, 29, and 30. Such campaigns should utilize local media, community networks, and digital platforms to promote engagement.

Closing Reflections: Towards an Inclusive Educational Future

The constitution of India provides a powerful framework for protecting the right to education for minorities. But it is also essential to acknowledge and respond to the intersectional nature of identity factors such as religion, caste, gender, and language for any constitutional value of substantive equality to be realized. Affirmative action is not against merit; rather it is a necessary action to meaningfully address historical and structural injustice. As legal professionals and practitioners, policy-makers or citizens, we must continue to ensure that the right to education is transformed from a legal entitlement to a lived reality for all.

Endnotes

[i] India Const. art. 21-A

[ii] Mohammad Asif Khan, Minorities and Their Educational Rights with Special Reference to India, 9 Int’l J. Creative Res. Thoughts 111 (2020), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347548851_Minorities_and_Their_Educational_Rights_with_Special_Reference_to_India.

[iii] OHCHR, Minority Rights:  International Standards and Guidance for Implementation (Geneva: United Nations, 2010), p. 2

[iv] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F. 139.

[v] Substantive Equality, The Equal Rights Trust, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/substantive-equality

[vi] Formal Equality, Oxford Reference (Oxford Univ. Press), https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095815256

[vii] State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 S.C.R. 906.

[viii] INDIA CONST. art. 21 A.

[ix] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, No. 35 of 2009, § 12(1)(c), India Code (2009).

[x] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, No. 35 of 2009, § 12(1)(c), India Code (2009).

[xi] INDIA CONST. art. 29

[xii] INDIA CONST. art. 30.

[xiii] T.M.A. Pai Found. v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481 (India).

[xiv] INDIA CONST. art. 15(4).

[xv] INDIA CONST. art. 15(5).

[xvi] Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).

[xvii] Govt. of India, Sachar Committee Report on Social, Economic, and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India (2006).

[xviii] Centre for Policy Research, State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) Report (2019), https://rte25percent.org.

[xix] D.A.V. Coll. v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1737 (India).

[xx] Centre for Policy Research, “State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) Report,” (2022), available at https://rte25percent.org.

[xxi] State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 S.C.R. 906 (India).

[xxii] Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).