Karnataka’s RTE: A model for other states

The pioneering rules fulfil a child's fundamental right to education. They deserve to be implemented across the country

On April 1, 2013, celebrated as the Right to Education (RTE) Day, the Karnataka High Court took up a suo motu case (WP 15768/2013), questioning the government as to why there were still 54,000 out-of-school children (OoSC) when the RTE Act had made elementary education a fundamental right. 

As a result of this pioneering case, taken up by the then Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna, a ‘preventive protocol’ for ensuring that all children are enrolled, retained and complete elementary education was incorporated into the RTE rules of Karnataka by amending Rule 6 to include Rules 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D. 

The Karnataka protocol redefined ‘drop out’ as “continued absence of a child from school for seven days without prior permission…”; assigned a government official as ‘Attendance Authority’ (AA) to re-integrate OoSC within a specified timeframe by following the specified protocol; involved the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to provide necessary support to families and, if all else failed, required the CWC to take charge of the child ‘in its best interest’ and place it in a free residential school. 

This was to fulfil the child’s fundamental right to education and the state’s responsibility to ensure it. These amendments incorporated the provisions of Articles 9, 18 and 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Karnataka’s rules for the first time in the country for ensuring RTE.

In contrast, Section 4 of the RTE Act, 2009, which most states are following, primarily focuses on a ‘curative/rehabilitative approach’ in the form of bridge courses, etc., after the child has dropped out for several months. No official is designated to be accountable for every OoSC to fulfil the State’s responsibility, and there is no way the State can take charge of the child if it continues to remain out of school. 

Many attempts were made over several years by this writer to promote the adoption of Karnataka’s ‘preventive protocol’ across the nation by approaching the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development and several other authorities. However, there was no response to any of these attempts.  

An incentive to pursue these efforts came when a national study, ‘Computation of out-of-school children based on administrative data (UDISE+ 2021-22)’, by Arun C Mehta of ‘Education for All in India’ found, on the basis of the UDISE+ Report of 2021-22, that 1,00,20,428 children across the nation were out of school at elementary level in absolute numbers. 

Using these figures, a PIL was filed in the SC (WP 158/2024) on February 27, 2024, with the prayer that the SC should direct the Ministry of School Education & Literacy (MoSE&L) to either amend the RTE Act or ask all states to amend their rules to upscale Karnataka’s ‘preventive protocol’ to the entire country and thus ensure that there are no more OoSC in the country.  

However, the SC, while disposing of the PIL on March 7, 2024, directed that “it is open to the petitioner to apprise the central government for taking steps as prayed, who may examine the issue if felt necessary”. 

As per this direction, petitions were filed with the President and Prime Minister of India on August 2, 2024, to direct the MoSE&L to take steps as prayed in the PIL in the SC.

But when no response was received from the MoSE&L for more than a month, an email was sent to the SC requesting that suo motu action be taken by it on the matter, but no action was taken.

However, the MoSE&L responded on October 29, 2024, merely listing out the various schemes in place for attracting children to school. But it had no answer as to why despite these schemes there were still more than 1,00,20,428 OoSC in the country, indicating the failure of the state to fulfil its responsibility to ensure the fundamental right of these children. 

The MoSE&L did not offer to amend its definition of ‘drop out’ or designate an official as Attendance Authority; there was no mention of involving the CWC in assisting parents either, all of which were the main prayers sought.

The MoSE&L failed to state why the Karnataka model could not be upscaled to the entire country by amending the RTE Act or by issuing guidelines to all state governments to adopt it.

In its defence, the MoSE&L letter stated that education being in the Concurrent List, it is the duty of states to make any changes to their rules, and that the Union government is responsible only for the schools run by it. 

If this is true, it is difficult to justify how the Union government issues guidelines to all the states periodically for the better implementation of the RTE Act. A further appeal was made to the PMO on December 28, 2024, raising these issues. 

Coincidentally, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education of the Rajya Sabha, Digvijaya Singh, forwarded this writer’s petition to the MoSE&L and asked them to respond to it. 

Also, the need for a ‘preventive protocol’ for retaining children in school, based on the Karnataka model, the absence of which “is incompatible with the concept of a fundamental right”, has been included in Digvijaya’s report to the Union government.

The committee has recommended that “the department should conduct a review of the protocols enforced by states across the country–like the well-regarded protocol in Karnataka–and suggest a model set of rules for all states”.

Possibly, as a result of these interventions, the MoSE&L has issued a note on February 27, 2025, to all secretaries of the school education departments of all states/Union Territories, enclosing Govt. of Karnataka’s GO of 15.03.2014 containing Rules 6A to 6D, among others “for favour of information and necessary action as deemed fit”.  

It is no doubt a feather in the cap of Karnataka’s RTE rules, but it is only a limited success as no amendment to the RTE Act or at least a directive to all state governments to incorporate Karnataka’s preventive protocol has been issued. The MoSE&L surely could have done more to fulfil its duty to ensure the fundamental right to education and life of one crore children. 

(The writer is the Executive Trustee of CIVIC-Bangalore)