Under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 (RTE Act), the Indian State accepted an obligation to make schooling accessible and compulsory for children between the ages of 6-14 years. In a rather controversial provision (Section 12(1)(c)), the act also mandated that unaided private schools admit at least 25 per cent of their children at the entry level from sections of society deemed to be economically weak and disadvantaged, at no cost to the students. In turn, the State promised to reimburse schools an amount equal to either the per child expense incurred by the government or the school fee, whichever is lower. The reimbursement rule implied a financial burden (in terms of lost revenues) for schools whose per child expenditure exceeded what the government claimed to spend in its schools, but more significantly, threatened the underlying logic of private enterprise, to select ‘customers’ based not only on the customer’s ability to pay but also of the school’s choice (Sarin & Gupta, 2013). Contested in the country’s highest court, the mandate was deemed to be constitutional and aligned with the obligations that the private providers had accepted when they were allowed to set up their schools.