A Public Interest Litigation has arisen in the Madhya Pradesh High Court concerning a 10-year-old child who was granted provisional admission into Class 9 under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The case examines whether education policies permit such a jump for exceptionally talented children, and whether existing examination bylaws and the National Education Policy (NEP) properly accommodate such exceptional cases.
The facts are that the child had completed schooling from Class 1 through Class 8, but when seeking admission in Class 9, CBSE denied admission based on its bylaws and the NEP framework. The father of the child approached the High Court after the refusal, and a single-judge bench initially directed CBSE to consider provisional admission for the child.
CBSE, in response, filed an appeal challenging that order. Their argument is that under NEP’s structure (notably the 5+3+3+4 pattern), age and prescribed progression norms must be followed. CBSE’s counsel submitted that policies and bylaws are drafted by experts, are intended to ensure uniformity in educational progression, and do not contemplate skipping multiple grade levels. In particular, age requirements and grade level assignments are regulated, and making a blanket exception could undermine the consistency of education standards.
The Division Bench, composed of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, expressed strong reservations about rigid adherence to policy restrictions when dealing with child prodigies. The Bench posed rhetorical and probing questions: if a student is truly capable of clearing Class 9 and Class 10 at a young age, how does that affect the government or the educational system? They questioned whether a policy that does not allow bright children to advance based on merit rather than age is appropriate. The judges noted that globally there are many examples of prodigies—young doctors, chess grandmasters, innovators—who have achieved remarkable feats well ahead of their age. The Bench suggested that educational policy should make allowances for such exceptional ability, rather than effectively curbing intelligence.
The Court also asked CBSE’s counsel how many more years the child would have to wait before being eligible for Class 9 under the NEP guidelines. CBSE responded that under NEP norms, the child would have to wait two more years. The Bench appeared unconvinced that waiting is a reasonable solution in the face of demonstrable exceptional ability, emphasizing that policy should be responsive in light of extraordinary cases.
Given these observations, the High Court issued notices to CBSE and the Central Government, asking them to show what policy exists for child prodigies, and whether there are rules or provisions that allow acceleration or skipping grades for exceptional students. The Bench sought to understand whether there is any formal mechanism or statute addressing such situations and whether the policy as currently formulated unjustly prevents exceptionally bright children from being placed in higher classes.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing, with the next date fixed. What is central to the Court’s inquiry is whether the existing educational policies unduly constrain exceptionally talented children, and whether modifications or exceptions should be recognized in law to allow such children to advance based on ability rather than strict age or class norms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.