Despite the right to education being deeply rooted in India’s constitutional principles, due to bureaucratic hurdles, juristic uncertainties, and socio-political considerations, thousands of Rohingya refugee children in India are being denied the opportunity to seek education.
The Rohingya, Myanmar’s ethnic minority, have suffered for decades, being stateless, forced to flee, and subjected to systematic persecution. Escalating violence since 2012 in Myanmar’s Rakhine state forced thousands of Rohingya families to flee and take refuge in neighboring nations, including India. As of 2017, there were about 40,000 Rohingya refugees in India, with large concentrations in Delhi, Jammu, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Telangana. As of 2024, just over 22,000 Rohingya refugees in India were registered with the UNHCR. But being “illegal migrants” and not “refugees”, under legal categorisation, they are usually deprived of fundamental rights, such as education for their children.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, giving free and compulsory education to all children between the age group of 6 and 14 years, in principle encompasses all “persons” within the territorial jurisdiction of India. But Rohingya children are de facto denied because they do not have identity documents, are opposed by local governments, and are negatively affected due to changing government policies. As important as the global human rights instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989, are in pointing out the universality of the right to education, India’s absence of a national mechanism of protection for refugees has led to state and institution-level inconsistency regarding policy.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard at length pleas seeking government benefits and school admissions for Rohingya children. Notably, even as it fell short of issuing exhaustive directions, it identified that Rohingyas could not be discriminated against in exercising their right to education.
The Constitutional framework: Right to education and non-discrimination
India’s constitutional assurance of universal education and equal protection of the law provides a viable legal platform upon which educational rights can be rendered enforceable against refugee children. Even though India has no legislation whatsoever to deal specifically with refugees, its fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy provide overarching legal provisions under which non-discrimination in access to education can be extended to everyone regardless of nationality.
The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, inserted Article 21A, granting education as a right to children in the age group of 6–14 years. This was implemented by the RTE Act, 2009, for free and compulsory primary education and non-discrimination in school admission. Judicial pronouncements such as Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), and Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) have reaffirmed that education is a fundamental part of the right to life and dignity. Since Article 21 is applied to “all persons” and not just citizens, Rohingya children as persons in India are also under Article 21 protection. Practically, though, political barriers and administrative challenges have made sure that admission to schools remain largely withheld from Rohingya refugees.
Article 14 guarantees that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in the territory of India”. The phrase “any person” is extremely expansive covering non-citizens as well, and therefore Rohingya refugee children are given a level-playing field in the field of education under the law. The Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), and NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), reiterated that equality and protection extend to non-citizens. However, educational admission by local authorities usually gets rejected for students from the Rohingya community on the basis of security risks, absence of documents, or ambiguous policies.
This has prompted the judiciary to once again examine the role of the State, and on February 12, the Supreme Court reiterated that “no child will be discriminated against in education” while hearing a plea regarding school access for Rohingya children.
The Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 39(f), 41, and 45 obligate the State to promote education and ensure its equitable distribution. While not justiciable in themselves, the judiciary has interpreted these directives in conjunction with enforceable fundamental rights to make them binding in many cases. Yet, in the case of Rohingya refugees, there remains no uniform national or state-level framework that recognizes or facilitates access to education, leading to random enforcement and denial.
The international legal framework and India’s obligations
India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, but is nonetheless bound by a series of international human rights treaties guaranteeing the right to education for all children, including refugees. India ratified the CRC in 1992 and, as a result, ratified the right of every child to free and compulsory education under Article 28 and non-discrimination under Article 2. General Comment No. 6 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2005) also stipulates that children who are seeking asylum and those who are refugees cannot be discriminated against on grounds of legal status.
Similarly, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights proclaim education as a natural and attainable right. India’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically Goal 4, commits it to including and ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for children, including poor refugee communities. However, devoid of legislation, these international engagements remain idealized in operation.
The lack of a consistent, rights-based refugee policy results in ambiguity, leaving local authorities to interpret legal obligations at their discretion, often resulting in denial of basic services like education.
Administrative and policy hurdles to education among Rohingya children
The barriers confronting Rohingya children in India are legal, administrative, and socio-political. Foremost among them is a lack of documentation. Most Rohingya refugees are without official documents such as Aadhaar, birth certificate, or school transfer certificate—the pre-condition for school enrolment. Although the RTE Act doesn’t technically mandate such documents, schools in actuality frequently refuse admission in their absence. Even UNHCR-issued refugee registration cards are not usually recognized in all states equally.
Political perception and narrative regarding national security pose yet another serious obstacle. In a 2017 affidavit to the Supreme Court, the Indian government has cited Rohingya refugees as being a security threat. This has been followed by enhanced surveillance, mobility restrictions, and in places like Jammu, local restrictions on refugee children attending nearby schools. This notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed recently that matters of national security cannot be a carte blanche for plain denial of fundamental rights, like education. These tendencies portend a shift towards a more rights-conscious understanding, even though enforcement is spasmodic.
Language differences exclude Rohingya students even further. Their native language, Rohingya (Chittagonian-like dialect), is not much accepted in India. Schools typically operate in Hindi, English, or regional languages, making comprehension and participation difficult for refugee children. Government education programs lack targeted linguistic support or bridging courses, and informal learning provided by NGOs, while well-intentioned, lacks institutional legitimacy or recognition.
Policy recommendations: The way forward
In order to address these challenges, India must implement a systematic, legal approach to the education of refugee children. Primum, the country requires a national refugee law that will outline the rights and entitlements of groups of refugees, including access to education. This would create consistency among states and minimize dependency on arbitrary administrative discretion.
Second, the Ministry of Education will have to pass binding orders that will permit admitting children of refugees without formal proof. Special provision must be made concerning language teaching, remedial instruction, and integration schemes. In addition to that, government schemes of welfare like mid-day meals and scholarship should be available for refugee children in order to check school dropout rates amongst refugee children.
Third, government institutions need to coordinate more effectively with the UNHCR and NGOs. Current systems of refugee registration need to be linked to school enrolment systems in order to synchronize admissions. Community learning centers sponsored by the government can act as stopgap institutions until regular access is stabilized.
The Supreme Court’s latest trend that “no child will be discriminated against in education” must become an administration and policy motto too. On February 17, despite a progressive remark earlier on the right to education of Rohingya children, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the plea seeking directions for Delhi schools to admit Rohingya children. It noted that the more appropriate action was for the petitioners to approach the government schools first for admission to which they are eligible to be enrolled. Only if the schools deny, the Bench noted, the petitioners can approach the Delhi High Court. A second, similar plea, was rejected by the Court on February 28, again directing to approach schools first.
While the Court’s decision clarifies that there is no eligibility bar, an express set of directions on the education of Rohingya children would have been far more impactful. At this point, both the top Court and the Delhi High Court must keep a sharp eye on ensuring governments adhere to Article 21A and that no political interest prevails over constitutional and ethical obligations.
Conclusion
Withholding of education from Rohingya refugee children comes as a glaring wake-up call about the shortfall in India’s legal system whereby constitutional protection and international commitments don’t actually get reflected as security. While Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 enshrine education as a fundamental right, the absence of an official refugee policy leaves displaced people in a legal and administrative void. This creates institutionalised discrimination, as refugee children face insurmountable barriers to attending school despite India’s historical dedication to human rights.
There has to be a balanced approach, one that is attuned to national security interests as well as humanitarian obligations. Policy changes must consider flexible documentation, special enrolment programs, and integration programs that empower children while keeping them under surveillance. The global models of refugee education can guide India toward a system legally strong and ethically fair.
Lastly, extending education to every child, citizen or non-citizen, is not a legal issue but a moral obligation of a liberal State. Stopping the erosion of constitutional notions of justice, equality, and human dignity necessitates positive legal and policy measures to close the theory-practice gap in rights.