Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed a private school in Gwalior to include the biological father’s name in the academic records of his minor son, ruling that schools governed by the Right to Education (RTE) Act perform public duties and are subject to writ jurisdiction.
Division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma allowed a writ appeal filed by Vickramh Kalmady, setting aside an earlier order of the writ court which had dismissed his petition on grounds of maintainability.
The petitioner is the biological father of an eight-year-old child studying at Little Angels High School, Gwalior. He approached the High Court after the school allegedly refused to record his name as the father in school documents and denied him access to his child’s academic records and school application login credentials. Earlier schools in Bengaluru had recorded his name as the father.
The petitioner submitted that he is involved in ongoing matrimonial and custody proceedings, has visiting rights granted by the Karnataka High Court and has been regularly paying the child’s school fees. He argued that denial of access to academic information and exclusion of his name violated his parental rights and statutory obligations under the RTE Act.
While the writ court had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to hold that a writ petition against a private unaided school was not maintainable, the division bench held that the decision was wrongly applied. The HC observed that the RTE Act and Rules mandate maintenance of proper records of children, including details of parents or guardians, and this obligation applies even to unaided schools.
The court emphasised that accurate school records form the foundation for future public documents such as Aadhaar and passports, and disputes between parents should not adversely affect a child’s identity or welfare.
Allowing the appeal, the court directed the school to correct the records by incorporating the father’s name, ordered education authorities to ensure compliance and granted the father limited access to the child’s academic progress through the school app, while restraining him from direct interaction with school staff.
