Why RTE Admissions Remain Out of Reach for the Poorest

Scholars and NGOs have long observed that the poorest of the poor struggle to access a provision within the Right to Education Act that enables underprivileged children to study in private schools without paying fees. 

A major barrier to education is the cost of attending private schools. Even when fees are not required, other expenses like uniforms, books and transport are prohibitive for many families. Another barrier is the application process, which, according to activists who assist parents with the admission process, is getting increasingly difficult.

Gharelu Mahila Kamgar Union (GMKU), a domestic workers union based in Kanpur, was established in the early 2000s to fight for work rights and dignified living conditions for women domestic workers. GMKU also ensures that the women and their families avail the rights and benefits of various laws and policies. 

Since 2015, the union has taken up the daunting task of securing private school admissions for the children of its members. They do so through Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which mandates reservation of 25% seats in private elementary schools for the children of economically weaker and disadvantaged sections. 

During our research in Uttar Pradesh, we met a complex network of activists, NGOs and community mobilisers whose work is necessary for the implementation of Section 12(1)(c). They raise awareness about the provision, organise camps for the filling in of application forms, and petition on behalf of parents if schools refuse to admit children or demand fees. Through legal advocacy, policy reform and community mobilisation, these organisations and individuals have helped grow the number of successful Section 12(1)(c) applicants from just 108 across UP between 2011-2014, to over 100,000 in 2025 alone.

Although GMKU is not the most well-known organisation in UP’s Section 12(1)(c) story, it stands out for its organisational form (a union), its membership (working class women), and its size (approximately 18,000-20,000 domestic workers). 

Applications for Section 12(1)(c) are lodged online in Uttar Pradesh via the government’s ‘RTE Online Admission System’. RightWalk Foundation, an NGO that worked with the UP state government to develop this ‘tech-driven solution’, contends that it is ‘making the process smoother, fairer and more transparent’ and ensuring that ‘no child is left behind due to paperwork or red tapism’. The online system, together with the efforts mentioned above by RightWalk Foundation and others, have contributed to the meteoric rise in Section 12(1)(c) enrolments in the state since 2015. However, activists and social workers we spoke to in Lucknow and Kanpur felt that an unintended consequence of the online system is that parents lacking digital access and literacy are forced to rely on intermediaries to lodge their applications.

A GMKU worker responsible for filling out online forms on behalf of parents explained the mounting challenges of the application process. He said that this year, the government portal through which applications have to be lodged hasn’t worked well during the day, so “either we have to do them at odd hours or we are able to do only one form per day”. 

Considering that the GMKU submits 250-400 application forms on behalf of its members in each admission round, this has become a significant roadblock.

This problem has been compounded by the fact that a requirement for One Time Passwords (OTPs) has recently been introduced to the site. This requirement was intended to reduce submission of applications by intermediaries without the applicants’ consent. However, for GMKU the consequence is that instead of collating hard copies of multiple application forms ahead of online submission, someone will now need to sit with each parent applicant (and their phone) while they navigate the dysfunctional website together. 

Concerns about the OTP model extend beyond Section 12(1)(c). There is a growing movement of working-class women organising to articulate struggles with digital welfare systems. They point out that OTP requirements are based on the assumption that a phone has a single owner, which is often not the case. 

Along with OTP requirements, the Section 12(1)(c) application process has also become more difficult due to changes in the documentation required. For example, earlier the Aadhaar Card and an Affidavit from a Ward Councillor was deemed to be a valid proof of age. Owing to the virtually mandatory status of the Aadhaar Card for other schemes, such proof was generally easily obtained. However, from now on, only a Municipal Birth Certificate can suffice as proof of age. This has left many families scrambling to acquire the necessary documentation in time to apply before their child passes the age of school commencement.

These mounting barriers to application run counter to the advice of the courts, which have consistently ruled that states should “ensure that the provision is implemented in letter and spirit”. Most recently, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered on January 13, asked the states to clarify their rules and consider the level of “digital illiteracy” in forming regulations. 

This case involved a petitioner who had not followed the correct online application process but had sought admission in a private school after learning that it had unfilled Section 12(1)(c) seats. 

The judgement noted how important it is that underprivileged students “form a substantial proportion or critical mass in the class they join” for this provision to have the transformative effect on the learning experience of all children that it was meant to have. 

The court asked that every effort be made to ensure the “process of admission is easily accessible, effective and efficient” such that this process does not act as a barrier to achieving the 25% minimum.

It is possible that some of these changes have been introduced in response to persistent complaints from private schools that Section 12(1)(c) is not being availed by “the right people”. 

These schools contend that many Section 12(1)(c) students come from relatively well-off families, are already studying in private schools, or do not meet other criteria such as age or distance of their homes from the school. 

We learnt of several schools that had introduced their own processes for checking the eligibility of Section 12(1)(c) students even once those students had had their applications deemed eligible and successful by the government. 

The courts have made it clear that such checking processes are illegal and this was reiterated in the January 13 Supreme Court judgment: “the admitted children shall not be subjected to any further scrutiny by the respective schools”. But schools persist with these checks regardless. This contributes to the fact that Section 12(1)(c) students are a very small and invisible minority in many private schools.

One Section 12(1)(c) mother, Rakhi* from Lucknow, who has become very active in helping others to apply and supporting them when schools refuse admission told us of her struggles to even enter these schools or speak to the principal. Describing her work as a community mobiliser on a range of issues, she said, “I can’t read and write, but I like it very much that I leave and step out, I get information, I don’t shy away, I stand everywhere”. However, she conceded, “Our capacity is only within this locality. Only the people here recognise us. After that, let’s see if we get a chance.”

While GMKU is helping many parents increase their power through collective action, this collectivism is under threat. Unable to lodge large numbers of applications on behalf of members due to the increased requirements and issues with the application portal, GMKU has resorted to directing members to apply via Common Services Centres. 

However, according to GMKU, not only do these centres charge fees, they also often make mistakes on forms leading to applications being rejected. Furthermore, the union leader, who did not wish to be named, feels that the reduced ability to lodge applications together is eroding the collectivism of the union by individualising and privatising the application process. 

She said, “fighting and availing these rights together also binds the community and the union”. The union still tries to keep its collectivism intact by going in groups to the CSC and only “pay after the application receipt is printed”. But the union leader, who wished to remain anonymous, still feels it is getting increasingly difficult to keep the union integrated. 

Saleem, the founder of Saaras Foundation, an NGO that supports Section 12(1)(c) implementation in Lucknow and Kanpur, spoke about the UP government’s rules regarding the maximum distance a Section 12(1)(c) child can live from the school in which they are seeking admission. 

“RTE 12(1)(c) promises school choice beyond poverty – but what is the freedom worth if the 1 km radius and ward limits decide it for them?”. He thus posed a broader question of how access to quality education can be a right when accessing such rights can come down to quibbles over such minor details. As the application process becomes increasingly arduous, it seems likely that accessing free and compulsory education will long be plagued by such details. 

Shubham Yadav is Senior Research Fellow at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Amanda Gilbertson is Senior Lecturer in Anthropology & Development Studies at The University of Melbourne.

*Name changed for confidentiality.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.