Image for representation.
Credit: iStock Photo
Annually, hundreds of thousands of students in India undertake entrance examinations for a variety of academic programmes such as the IITJEE and the NEET examinations. As the number of students and the level of competition continues to grow at a rapid pace, we are witnessing the proliferation of coaching centres across the country. The high-stakes nature of these exams is associated with a range of psychological issues, including stress and poor mental health among students.
The recent deaths of students at coaching centres have prompted other concerns, regarding the safety of those attending such institutions. It has been observed that the fatalities have resulted from a combination of inadequate infrastructure and lack of regulation. In this context, there is a necessity to implement enforceable legislation that regulates coaching centres, to prioritise the health, well-being and safety of students.
In December 2023, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Sanjay Singhal vs NCT Delhi, passed an order appointing a joint task force comprising the Delhi Municipal Authority and the Delhi Fire Service to examine coaching institutes and to file a compliance report regarding infrastructural safety and fire hazard compliances by the centres.
The Court considered a batch of writ petitions that pertained to the proliferation of coaching institutes and commercial activities in Mukherjee Nagar and the abject failure of such establishments to comply with the fire and public safety norms. The Task Force filed the Status Report in February 2024 and stated that several coaching centres across the city had voluntarily shut down due to non-compliance with the directions of safety that had to be followed.
The Supreme Court, on August 5, 2024, initiated a suo motu case to analyse safety compliance by coaching centres in the wake of the recent tragedy where three UPSC aspirants lost their lives in a flooded basement at Rau’s IAS coaching centre in Delhi’s Old Rajinder Nagar.
During the hearing on October 21, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan recommended that comprehensive guidelines and policies should be established to ensure the safe working of coaching centres. They also highlighted the importance of accommodating students with special abilities and ensuring the safety of female students. Justice Kant also emphasised the necessity for a uniform standard to be adopted by States and Union Territories to the extent possible.
Legislation is key
At this juncture, it is imperative to note that in January 2024, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India, introduced the ‘Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centre 2024’ to provide a framework for regulating coaching centres across the country. The 2024 Guidelines contained provisions not just on the registration of centres, but also detailed requirements of curriculums, infrastructure, counsellor/psychologist support, and inclusivity and accessibility guidelines. They also aimed to empower local bodies to vet a new coaching centre for compliance as part of the registration process.
However, the guidelines were criticised – primarily for their lack of enforceability and for the lack of attention given to the mental health of students, amidst reports of stress and death by suicide. News reports claimed that there have been no significant changes observed since the Guidelines were introduced and that the issue of unregulated coaching centres continues to persist.
Furthermore, the current legislative framework at the state level also presents challenges. Some older state laws, such as the ones in Goa and Karnataka, are too primitive in their approach to regulating coaching centres. While legislation has recently been drafted in Rajasthan and Bihar, it currently lacks robust safeguards and provisions for the mental well-being of students.
Ideally, central and state legislations are preferable to guidelines, policies, rules and notifications that are introduced simply because they are enforceable by governments. Specifically, state legislation has the potential to result in increased regulation and monitoring, as the aforementioned centres vary considerably in subject matter, geographical location, and student population density.
States and UTs are empowered under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List-1 in Schedule VII of the Constitution to create legislation and empower local governments to regulate coaching centres. Consequently, the control of such centres may prove more straightforward at the state and local government level.
A comprehensive framework for the regulation of coaching centres by states would ensure accountability and transparency and prioritise the safety and well-being of students.
(The writer is a research associate at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)