Can ₹1,000 Cr fix a ₹20,000 Cr gap? HC questions State on School Infrastructure

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court, while examining the condition of government school infrastructure in the State, raised serious concerns over the adequacy of budgetary allocations and their direct bearing on student safety. Taking note of the significant disparity between the projected requirement and the funds actually sanctioned, the Court questioned the State’s commitment to ensuring safe and secure learning conditions, indicating that financial constraints cannot be invoked to justify continued exposure of children to unsafe and inadequate educational infrastructure.

The case arose in a suo motu public interest litigation initiated after multiple incidents of school building collapses across Rajasthan, including a tragic collapse in 2025 that resulted in the loss of young lives. Despite earlier assurances by the State that no dilapidated structures were being used, material placed before the Court revealed that students were still studying in unsafe environments, in some cases even under open skies and in unhygienic conditions.

The State itself acknowledged that nearly ₹20,000 crore would be required for comprehensive repair and construction of school infrastructure. However, only ₹1,624 crore had been sanctioned so far, with an additional ₹1,000 crore proposed in the upcoming budget, an apparent mismatch that became the central point of judicial concern. The Court was also informed that even efforts to secure additional financial assistance lacked coordination and clarity.

The Bench observed that the proposed allocation was “a drop in the ocean” when compared to the actual requirement, and noted that it was not convinced about the State’s sincerity in addressing the issue. The Court emphasised that financial limitations cannot dilute the State’s constitutional obligation to provide safe infrastructure for school children, especially when their lives and well-being are directly at risk. It further observed that with such a limited budget, ensuring a “safe, secure and conducive environment” appeared highly improbable unless urgent and substantial measures were taken.

Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing a time-bound roadmap for the construction and repair of school buildings, along with concrete steps to safeguard students and ensure accountability of officials.

Case Title: Suo Motu Vs. Union Of India and Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11613/2025

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Tanmay Dhand, Adv. Prateek Kasliwal, Adv. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mahesh Gurjar, Adv. Ashok Agarwal, Adv. Naina Saraf, Adv. Sunil Samdaria, Adv. Alok Garg, Adv. Punit Singhvi, Adv. Ayush Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: Sr Adv. Rajendra Prasad, Sr Adv. Bharat Vyas, Adv. Dhriti Laddha, Adv. Pradeep Mathur, Adv. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Adv. Vagish Kumar Singh, Adv. Sakshi Agarwal, Adv. Rakesh Choudhary, Adv. S.M. Sharma, AAG Manoj Sharma, AAG S.S. Naruka, Adv. Anshuman Singh,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com