A request for a review has been submitted to the Supreme Court, urging a reconsideration of its previous decision that declined to instruct the Delhi lieutenant governor to either approve or reject a 2015 bill proposing a ban on screening children for nursery admission. The Social Jurist NGO filed the review petition, highlighting its significance in light of recent Supreme Court rulings expressing dissatisfaction with governors in Punjab and Tamil Nadu for delaying assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

The petition underscores the Supreme Court's observation emphasizing that state governors should act in accordance with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution. Article 200 outlines the procedure for a bill passed by a state legislative assembly to be presented to the governor for approval. The governor holds the authority to grant consent, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration by the President of India, or send it back for the legislature's reconsideration.

On October 13, the Supreme Court dismissed the NGO's plea, asserting its inability to issue a directive to enact a law.

The Supreme Court, in response to the plea, stated, "Can there be a mandamus to enact a law? Can we direct the government to introduce the bill? Supreme Court can’t be the panacea for everything." This statement was made during the court's consideration of a PIL filed by the NGO, Social Jurist. The PIL sought intervention to either compel the Delhi lieutenant governor to approve the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, or to return it.

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court had already dismissed the PIL, asserting that it cannot interfere with the legislative process and instruct the lieutenant governor on assent matters. The NGO, represented by advocate Ashok Agarwal, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the child-friendly bill aimed at prohibiting the screening procedure for nursery admission had been in limbo between the central and Delhi governments for seven years without justification. The petition emphasized that this delay was contrary to public interest and public policy.

The Delhi High Court, in rejecting the PIL, maintained that it was inappropriate for a high court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to direct a governor—considered a constitutional authority—to establish a specific timeframe for matters falling within his exclusive jurisdiction. The court expressed the view that even though the bill had been passed by the legislative house, it remained within the governor's discretion to either agree or send it back for reconsideration. The high court explicitly stated that it should not issue a writ of mandamus compelling the governor to act in this regard. Article 226 empowers high courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes.

The appeal lodged against the high court's ruling underscored that the essence and intention of the 2015 bill were aimed at safeguarding children from exploitation and unjust discrimination during nursery admissions in private schools. The appeal contended that the purpose of the bill had been thwarted by the prolonged delay, pointing out that the Delhi government had successfully passed the legislation through the assembly as far back as 2015.

It further stated that the bill was crafted in response to the 2013 decision of the Delhi High Court on a PIL filed by the NGO Social Jurist. In 2013, the high court had recommended that the government consider making necessary amendments to the law to ensure that children seeking admission to nursery classes also enjoy the benefits outlined in the Right to Education Act of 2009. This law mandates free and compulsory education as a fundamental right for all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. The delay in implementing the 2015 bill was argued to be contrary to the spirit of these legal provisions designed to protect the educational rights of children.

The NGO reported that it submitted a representation to the authorities on March 21, 2023, urging them to promptly conclude the bill. However, a response received from the Centre on April 11 indicated that the bill had not yet been finalized by the two governments. The NGO emphasized that more than 1.5 lakh admissions occur annually at the nursery level in private schools in Delhi. It highlighted that children aged three and above undergo screening, a practice deemed inconsistent with the principles of the Right to Education Act of 2009.

The NGO sought the court's intervention to direct the authorities to expedite the finalization process of the bill, which aims to prohibit screening for admission at the pre-primary level. This plea underscores the urgency of addressing the issue and implementing measures to align with the educational rights enshrined in the Right to Education Act.