On a map, Lakshadweep looks like a scatter of emerald dots in the Arabian Sea. In court, however, those dots became the centre of a constitutional debate: how close must a school be to a child’s home?
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Right to Education’s promise of a school within “walking distance” cannot be read like a geometry problem. The phrase “neighbourhood school,” the Court said, is not meant to be trapped inside rigid numerical boundaries.
The case arose from a decision by the Lakshadweep administration to shift and consolidate certain primary school classes. In Agatti, classes from PM SHRI Junior Basic School (South) were ordered to move to the Government JB School (North). In Andrott, students from Government Junior Basic School, Machery, were to be relocated to Government SB School, Edachery.
Students from the islands challenged the move, arguing that it would force children to travel more than three kilometres—well beyond the one-kilometre “walking distance” they claimed was guaranteed under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010. They contended that shutting down functioning schools would dilute the mandate of Section 6 of the RTE Act and undermine the constitutional promise of free and compulsory education.
The administration responded with a different reality check. The Agatti school building, it said, was in a dilapidated condition and had been marked for demolition. On Andrott—an island just 4.66 km long with a population of a little over 11,000—six primary schools were operating within a compact stretch. The reshuffle, it argued, was an administrative necessity, not an attempt to erode access.
The Court examined Section 6 of the RTE Act, which requires governments to establish schools within prescribed neighbourhood limits. But it noted a crucial gap: the Central Rules applicable to Lakshadweep do not define “neighbourhood” or “walking distance.” Some States have framed precise definitions in their own rules. Lakshadweep has not.
That silence, the Court suggested, was deliberate at the legislative level. Defining a “neighbourhood” with clinical precision across a country as geographically diverse as India would be a near-impossible task. What qualifies as nearby in a dense city block may look very different on a narrow island strip or in a remote rural pocket.
“Neighbourhood,” the Court observed, refers to locality—not a mathematical formula.
Taking into account Lakshadweep’s unique geography and the fact that multiple schools would continue to function even after consolidation, the Court found no violation of the RTE Act or the 2010 Rules. The administrative decision, it held, did not breach the statutory or constitutional framework.
With that, the writ petitions were dismissed—leaving behind a clear judicial message: access to education must be protected, but it cannot be assessed in isolation from ground realities.
