The Supreme Court’s September 2025 judgment requires all in-service teachers from Classes 1 to 8 in non-minority schools to clear the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) within two years. Failure to do so will lead to compulsory retirement. This ruling has triggered widespread concern among States, especially Tamil Nadu, which employs nearly 4.5 lakh teachers, most of whom are not TET-qualified. The judgment challenges the existing workforce and raises questions about balancing teacher quality and children’s right to education.
Background of the Supreme Court Judgment
The two-judge Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta mandated that teachers with more than five years of service must pass the TET within two years or face retirement. Teachers with fewer than five years left are exempt but must qualify for promotion. The judgment also emphasized that future teacher appointments and promotions require TET qualification. It referred the question of minority institutions’ inclusion under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act to a larger Bench, denoting misuse of minority status to bypass TET requirements.
Impact on Tamil Nadu and Other States
Tamil Nadu employs 4,49,850 teachers in government and aided schools. Of these, 3,90,458 are not TET-qualified. The State argues that enforcing the judgment would lead to mass disqualification and disrupt education for millions of children. Other States share similar concerns. Tamil Nadu contends the judgment conflicts with Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged six to 14. The State seeks a balance between maintaining education quality and protecting children’s right to learn.
Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised
The judgment invokes Article 142 to exempt some teachers nearing retirement. However, the core issue is the retrospective application of TET qualifications. Tamil Nadu’s review petition argues that Section 23(1) of the RTE Act applies only to future recruitments. It points to Section 23(2), which allows temporary relaxation of qualifications in case of teacher shortages. The State warns that enforcing the mandate retrospectively will destabilise the education system and cause empty classrooms.
Quality versus Continuity in Education
The judgment aims to raise teaching standards by enforcing a national qualification benchmark. However, critics argue that compelling decades-serving teachers to qualify within two years is disproportionate. Tamil Nadu proposes alternatives such as in-service training, capacity building, and refresher courses to improve quality without risking teacher displacement. The tension lies between ensuring competent teachers and safeguarding educational access for children.
Minority Institutions and Universal Education
The judgment challenges the 2014 Pramati case, which excluded minority schools from RTE mandates. It stresses that exempting minority institutions fragments the vision of universal elementary education under Article 21A. The court seeks to include minority-run schools under TET and RTE provisions to promote inclusivity and uniform standards in elementary education.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the implications of retrospective application of educational qualifications for in-service teachers in India’s public education system.
- Comment on the role of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, in ensuring quality and inclusivity in elementary education with suitable examples.
- Explain the constitutional provisions under Article 21A and Article 142 and their impact on judicial decisions relating to education policy and teacher recruitment.
- What are the challenges faced by minority educational institutions in India regarding regulatory compliance? How does the inclusion under the RTE Act affect the principle of minority rights?
