The Delhi High Court has upheld the admission test conducted for entry into Class VI of CM SHRI Schools. The court ruled that this process does not violate the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed a petition filed by Master Janmesh Sagar. Sagar had argued that the test was an unlawful screening procedure banned under Section 13 of the RTE Act and violated the fundamental Right To Education under Article 21-A of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the Delhi Government’s July 23, 2025 circular, which set admission guidelines for Classes VI to VIII for the 2025-2026 session. He was made to take the test on September 13, 2025, and was declared 'failed' when results came out on September 29, 2025. Before coming to the High Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed it on November 17, 2025, allowing him to approach the High Court instead. Counsel Sameer Vashisht, representing the Delhi Government, said the issue was already settled by a 2012 Division Bench ruling in Social Jurist v. GNCTD. That ruling allowed selection-based admissions into Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalayas at Class VI. He explained that CM SHRI Schools are "specified category schools," so Section 13's screening ban does not apply to admissions at Class VI. The Central Government’s lawyer agreed with this. The court said the ban on screening in Section 13 only applies at entry-level classes like Nursery or Class I. For Class VI admissions, the process is treated as a transfer, not a fresh entry. Since students are already enrolled in elementary schools, the RTE Act does not guarantee a right to transfer to CM SHRI or similar schools. The court added that giving better education chances to students who show potential is not discrimination. Seats in top schools are limited and demand is high. The High Court also noted that the Supreme Court's permission to file the petition was only to consider the case legally, not to ensure the petition succeeds. The writ petition was dismissed as it violated no law and was covered by earlier binding court decisions.