Denial Of Admission To Student By A Private Unaided School Does Not Violate Article 21: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere non-admission of a minor student in a private unaided school would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Muzammil Kazi, who had approached the court seeking a direction to St. Paul's High School to admit his minor son to its school in LKG grade.

The bench said, “The mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.”

The petitioner had made an application for admission of his son to the school. Though an intimation had been received by him informing that he had been selected and was called upon to come along with the parents on 28.02.2025 from 01:30 to 03:30 p.m. to meet the Principal and confirm the seat, subsequently, the website indicated a change with a new intimation stating “verification pending.”

The petitioner argued that there is no particular embargo as regards the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of a private unaided school. Education is an aspect involving a public element. Any school, even if it is an unaided school, would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, and as such, this Court would be entitled to conduct judicial review of any action taken by the school.

The school opposed the petition, contending that the present writ petition is not maintainable since respondent No.3 is a private unaided school and a writ cannot be issued against a private unaided school. The school had a strength of 150 seats available, all 150 seats have been filled. The intimation, which had been sent, was wrongly sent to 61 students. If all the 61 students were to be considered, it would exceed the sanctioned admission strength of the school.

The bench on going through the records said “There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is any such allegation made as regards the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, though a reference is made that non-grant of admission would deprive the petitioners of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

It then held “It is not the case that only if petitioner No.2 is admitted to respondent No.3 school, the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would be preserved.”

Rejecting the contention of the respondents on the maintainability of the petition, the bench said “The powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are extensive, and whenever any action is taken by any authority or private entity that impacts the fundamental and constitutional rights of a citizen of the country, power of judicial review can be exercised by this Court. However, there are self-imposed limitations on the said jurisdiction, namely: (i) that such exercise could be made only when there is a public element involved, and (ii) more importantly, if any of the fundamental rights of a citizen are affected by an action even taken by a private entity i.e., if there is a violation of fundamental rights, more particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Then it held “Merely because respondent No.3 is a private unaided school, would not mean that this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, if an action on part of the private unaided school impinges on the fundamental or constitutional rights of a citizen, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private unaided school is maintainable.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Anwarali D.Nadaf for Petitioner.

HCGP Sriyuths P N Hatti for R1 & R2.

Advocate Akshay Katti for R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

Case Title: Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101767 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order