The Supreme Court on Teacher Eligibility Test (TET): A Landmark 2025 Judgment and Its Implications for Schools

Compiled by #Team_VikramDeshmukh&Consultants

Introduction

In February 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment (2025 INSC 1063) that has far-reaching consequences for teachers, schools, and education policy in India. The case revolved around two critical questions:

1. Can the State mandate that teachers in minority institutions must qualify in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)?
2. Are in-service teachers, appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), required to pass the TET for promotions?

The appeals before the Court came from a wide spectrum of stakeholders — minority educational institutions, state governments, teachers’ associations, and the Union of India — all seeking clarity on how the TET interacts with the constitutional rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1) and the universal right to education under Article 21A.

Background: TET and the RTE Act

The Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) was enacted to give life to Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14.

To ensure teaching quality, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued notifications in 2010 and 2011 making TET mandatory as the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers for Classes I–VIII.

This move, however, created friction:

• Minority institutions argued that their right to administer institutions under Article 30(1) shields them from such requirements.
• Teachers appointed before the RTE Act argued that retrospective imposition of TET for promotions would be unfair.
• Governments contended that quality education is impossible without TET-qualified teachers, regardless of institution type.

Key Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court reframed the debate into two major issues:

1. TET and Minority Institutions
   • Whether mandatory TET infringes on the constitutional right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
2. TET and In-Service Teachers
   • Whether teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act (and prior to NCTE’s 2010 notification) are required to pass the TET to be eligible for promotions.

Divergent High Court Views

The case reached the Supreme Court because of conflicting judgments by the Bombay and Madras High Courts:

• Bombay High Court (2017): Upheld Government of Maharashtra’s resolution making TET mandatory, even for minority institutions.
• Madras High Court (2019 & 2023): Held that TET is inapplicable to minority institutions, relying on the Supreme Court’s Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) ruling.
• Other orders (2018–2022): Various interim stays and directions added to the legal confusion, particularly on the applicability of TET to promotions.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Constitutional Balancing of Articles 21A and 30(1)

• The Court acknowledged the tension between the State’s duty to ensure quality education (Article 21A) and the rights of minorities to administer institutions (Article 30(1)).
• It questioned whether Article 30(1) grants a blanket immunity to minority institutions from all regulatory frameworks.

2. The Role of Teachers in Quality Education

• Teachers were described as the “lifeblood of the education system.”
• The Court emphasized that TET is designed to ensure minimum teaching aptitude and standards, essential to fulfilling the constitutional promise of quality education.

3. Minority Exemption under Pramati (2014)

• In Pramati, a Constitution Bench had held that the RTE Act does not apply to minority institutions.
• The present Bench noted that the broad exemption may need reconsideration by a larger Bench, as excluding minority institutions entirely from quality norms risks harming students’ educational rights.

4. In-Service Teachers and Promotions

• Teachers appointed before July 29, 2011 (when NCTE mandated TET) may continue in service without TET.
• However, for promotions, TET is mandatory. This ensures that higher posts are occupied only by those meeting current standards.
• The Court rejected arguments that retrospective application violated Articles 14 and 16, reasoning that educational quality overrides service convenience.

The Court’s Directions

1. Reference to Larger Bench:
   • The question of whether minority institutions can be completely exempted from TET and other RTE provisions has been referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
2. On In-Service Teachers:
   • Teachers appointed prior to July 29, 2011 may continue without TET, but cannot be promoted without passing TET.
3. On New Appointments:
   • All new teacher appointments (post-2011) — whether in aided, unaided, minority, or non-minority institutions — must be of TET-qualified candidates.

Implications for Schools and Educators

1. For Minority Institutions:
   • Currently, they may rely on Pramati to claim exemption, but the Supreme Court has indicated that this position may change. Schools should prepare for the possibility that TET could become mandatory across the board.
2. For Teachers:
   • In-service teachers without TET are protected in their current posts but face a ceiling on promotions. Clearing TET is essential for career advancement.
3. For Education Policy:
   • This judgment strengthens the State’s regulatory authority to maintain standards in teaching.
   • It signals a move towards uniform teacher qualification requirements across all institutions.
4. For Students and Parents:
   • The focus is squarely on ensuring that every child, regardless of whether they study in a minority or majority-run school, has access to qualified teachers.

Conclusion

The 2025 Supreme Court ruling is a watershed moment in Indian education law. By reinforcing the role of TET in guaranteeing teacher quality, while simultaneously questioning the extent of minority exemptions, the Court has set the stage for a larger constitutional debate.

For educators, school managements, and policymakers, the message is clear:

• Teacher quality is non-negotiable.
• Regulatory exemptions must be balanced with children’s right to quality education.

The final word will come when a larger Constitution Bench decides on the applicability of the RTE Act to minority institutions. Until then, this judgment is a call to action for schools and teachers alike to prioritize professional standards in the noble task of nation-building through education.