Source: Lawbeat

A Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, appearing as petitioner‑in‑person, challenges the growth of unregulated private coaching centres and the alleged "dummy school" model that the petition says has produced a parallel education system undermining constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to education. The petition invokes Article 32 and alleges breaches of Articles 14, 21 and 21A of the Constitution, relies on Directive Principles in Articles 38, 39(f), 45 and 46, and cites the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Respondents named include the Union of India, Ministry of Education, National Testing Agency, CBSE, NCERT, National Medical Commission, IIT Council, Bar Council of India, Staff Selection Commission, Central Consumer Protection Authority, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and all States and Union Territories. The petitioner contends formal schooling has been reduced to certification while success in competitive exams such as NEET, JEE, CLAT, CUET and SSC is driven by paid coaching that provides specialised instruction, curated materials, mock tests and exam strategies, thereby advantaging wealthier students and disadvantaging those dependent on regular school.

The petition alleges that the dummy school practice deprives children of meaningful classroom teaching, extracurricular activities, counselling and overall development, and that prolonged coaching schedules harm physical and mental well‑being and undermine Article 21A. It refers to the Ministry of Education's January 16, 2024 Guidelines on regulation of coaching centres and the CCPA's guidance on misleading coaching advertisements, arguing that advisory measures are inadequate without an enforceable statutory framework. Reliefs sought include a binding statutory framework to regulate private coaching centres, strict enforcement to eliminate dummy schools via attendance norms, alignment of school curricula with national entrance examinations, creation of a free multilingual government digital platform for competitive exam preparation, mandatory disclosure and regulation of coaching success claims and advertisements, institutional safeguards for student mental health, and annual publication of data on successful candidates including schooling background and socio‑economic information. The case is styled Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India & Ors.; the Supreme Court has yet to examine the petition's merits and, if listed, the matter is expected to require responses from the Union Government, education regulators and the States. The petitioner frames a constitutional question whether the State can permit formal schools in law while access to higher education is largely controlled by a private coaching market, arguing that meaningful education cannot be reduced to mere enrolment and that merit should not hinge on a family's ability to purchase coaching.