The Maharashtra government was strongly criticised by the Bombay High Court for promoting Marathi while issuing resolutions that could cause hundreds of Marathi medium schools to shut down. Justices Jamdar and Pravin Patil, at the Kolhapur bench, observed a batch of appeals challenging Government Resolutions dated April 1 and April 2, 2026, and disqualified several primary and secondary schools from receiving state grants-in-aid. These schools were ordered to register under a self-finance act before 30 April or risk shutting down; however, the court declared it unfair as it violates the principle of natural justice.
The court noted that the move would affect over 433 primary schools and 324 secondary schools in the state, mostly Marathi medium in rural and remote areas. The bench directly quoted: "The State Government, on the one hand, is insisting that Marathi language should be given importance in the entire State and on the other hand, by said action, is trying to close down Marathi schools.
GR was accused of having a drastic impact on students with their "no hearing" mindset. The bench highlighted that the State had overlooked several important considerations before making such a significant and far-reaching decision. Among these were whether it was practically feasible for the schools to be transformed into self-financed institutions in accordance with the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools Act, 2012. Additionally, the bench questioned whether the teaching and non-teaching staff currently employed at these schools could be reassigned or absorbed into other roles or institutions. Another critical factor that the State failed to address was the impact on students, particularly those residing in rural and remote areas, and whether these students could be accommodated in nearby schools without disruption to their education. The bench implied that neglecting these factors rendered the decision hasty and potentially harmful, especially for vulnerable communities relying on these schools.
The bench accepted the argument presented and concluded that the Government Resolutions (GRs) in question did not apply to the petitioner schools. Consequently, it instructed the government to remove the names of these petitioning schools from the list attached to the GRs. This decision allowed the petitioner schools to continue their operations without facing any form of coercion or forced closure. The bench’s ruling effectively protected these schools from the implementation of the GRs, ensuring that they could function freely and without interference from the government’s directives.
Management of these schools is trying to provide students from families that lack money and are studying in Marathi medium schools, and cannot be deprived of primary and secondary education.
The Bombay High Court looked at a Government Resolution from November 15, 2011, which explains how schools should be checked before getting a grant-in-aid. According to this rule, district and regional committees must carefully inspect schools, including visiting them to check their buildings and teaching quality.
The schools said the government took a harsh step by disqualifying them from grants without giving them a chance to explain or defend themselves. Some schools said they were already approved for partial grants before, and others said their grant requests were still being reviewed.
The court found no proof that these schools failed the required checks for three years in a row, which is needed before disqualification. Many schools had been running for years with official permission from the Education Department.
The court also said the government had ignored important issues before making its decision. It did not check if nearby schools had room for students who would lose their schools, if students could continue learning in the same language, or what would happen to the teachers and staff.
The court questioned the government’s order forcing schools to apply under the Self-Financed Schools Act. It said that deciding to become self-financed is up to the school management, and the government cannot force this by executive orders.
Finally, the court said closing schools without giving them a hearing was unfair. The government should have at least followed the 2011 rules and given schools a chance to respond before taking any action. The Court finally decided that the Government Resolutions being challenged could not be applied to the petitioner schools because doing so went against the basic rules of fairness, known as the principles of natural justice. These principles require that before any serious action is taken against an institution, it must be given a fair chance to be heard and defend itself. Since this did not happen, the Court found the State’s actions to be unfair and improper.
As a result, the Court ordered the State Government to remove the names of the petitioner schools from the lists attached to those Government Resolutions. This means that the schools should no longer be considered disqualified or barred from receiving grants under those resolutions. The Court also made it clear that the petitioner schools are allowed to continue their operations without facing any pressure, threats, or forced closure based on the disputed Government Resolutions. In other words, the schools can keep functioning normally and should not be subjected to any coercive or harsh measures because of those resolutions.
This ruling protects the rights of the schools and ensures that the government must follow fair procedures before taking any action that could harm educational institutions. It emphasises the importance of justice and fairness in decisions that affect schools, students, and staff.
References: