Provisions Of Right To Education & RPWD Act Don't Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus found no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling, for the year 2025, which had prescribed eye standards for children seeking admission to the Sainik School.

“The Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not applicable to the second respondent's school, since it is administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence, and these kinds of schools were started with the intention to act as feeder institutes for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) 2025 issued by the second respondent, and this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed,” the court said.

“The Sainik Schools are designed to groom students for future roles as military officers, focusing on their mental and physical readiness. The primary objective of Sainik Schools is to prepare cadets for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. Therefore, stringent medical standards, particularly regarding ocular health, are mandated by the Sainik School Society to ensure that candidates meet the necessary physical criteria for military service,” the court added.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a minor boy challenging the decision of Sainik School to deny him admission to 6^th Standard for not meeting the eye standard set up by the school.

It was submitted that the boy had scored 227 marks out of 300 marks in the entrance examination conducted by the school and was within the cutoff marks under the category of Scheduled Caste community. The school had then directed the boy to appear before the Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for verification of medical fitness and as per the medical report, he was declared medically unfit for Eye Standard-II. It was further submitted that when the petitioner applied for a review, he was directed to report to the Military Hospital, Chennai for further examination. The Military Hospital confirmed the finding of the Coimbatore Medical College.

The petitioner argued that his rejection was not on the ground of ineligibility but only on the ground of medical fitness. It was argued that the rejection was contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. It was argued that the educational institutions should admit persons with disabilities without discrimination and should provide education and opportunities for sports and recreation activities equally with others. Thus, the petitioner argued that the Standard Operating Procedure adopted by the Sainik School and setting the eye standard was illegal, and was liable to be declared as void.

The school, on the other hand, submitted that all Sainik Schools functioned under the administrative control of the Sainik Schools Society and the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. It was submitted that Sainik Schools were residential institutions commencing from Class VI with the primary aim to act as a feeder institute for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy. The institution argued that a medical examination was a non-negotiable for getting admitted into the Sainik.

The court noted that the stringent medical standards were prescribed by the school to ensure that the candidates meet the necessary physical criteria for military service.

The court added that after having accepted the SOP for the Admission Counselling by the school and appearing for the entrance examination, the student could not challenge the very SOP itself, especially after the receipt of the medical report.

Noting that the provisions of the welfare acts were not applicable to the Sainik Schools, the court opined that it did not find any infirmity or illegality in the SOP of the school. Thus, the court dismissed the plea, noting that it was devoid of merits.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Saseetharan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

Case NO: W.P.No.29225 of 2025