Can't Curtail Right To Education: MP High Court Allows 'Extraordinary' 11-Yr-Old's Provisional Admission To Class 9 Despite Being 'Underage'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the fundamental right to education envisioned under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely by imposing conditions regarding age limit.

It thus directed provisional admission of an 11-year-old student, who was denied admission to Class IX on the grounds of being underage as per the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020. 

The bench emphasised that if the student is exceptionally well and his understanding is on a higher side, then 'such student/candidates cannot be suppressed or overlooked merely on the ground of he being underage'. The court also noted that the clause 4.1 under NEP based on which he was denied admission, is not mandatory and does not speak of "extraordinary students" who are having some exceptional qualities and capabilities.

The clause states that the curricular and pedagogical structure and the curricular framework for school education will be guided by a 5+3+3+4 design. This consists of the Foundational Stage (in two parts– 3 years of Anganwadi/pre-school + 2 years in primary school in Grades 1-2; both together covering ages 3-8); Preparatory Stage (Grades 3-5, covering ages 8-11), Middle Stage (Grades 6-8, covering ages 11-14), and Secondary Stage (Grades 9-12 in two phases, i.e., 9 and 10 in the first and 11 and 12 in the second, covering ages 14-18). 

Thus, the bench of Justice Vishal Mishra ordered;

"this Court deems it appropriate to allow this writ petition with a direction to the respondents/CBSE Board as well as the respondent No.6/Institution to provide provisional admission in Class 9 in the respondent No.6/Institution. The day to day activities of the petitioner will be monitored by the Principal of the Institution. The petitioner is also directed to file representation to the Chairman of CBSE along with all the relevant papers including the reports of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Chairman to take a final decision with respect to the petitioner's admission in Class 9 looking to his overall performance". 

The petitioner, a minor boy, had studied from Class I to VIII in the same institution (respondent no 6) and consistently secured excellent academic results. Despite his meritorious performance, his registration for Class IX was denied by school authorities, citing the age criteria prescribed under Clause 4.1 of the NEP 2020. 

It was argued by respondents that as per Clause 4.1 of the policy the petitioner is not fulfilling the age criteria and is under age, he cannot be given admission in Class IX which is the secondary stage. The clause pertains to Curriculum and Pedagogy in Schools. 

The petitioner was asked to either amend the date of birth in the Transfer Certificate or to obtain TC from the school,

The petitioner's mother made multiple representations seeking special permission for registration, highlighting his brilliance and submitting a sworn affidavit. However, the authorities rejected her request, leading to the present petitions. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the refusal to register the child amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further contended that Clause 4.1 of NEP 2020 is directory and not mandatory, and that age relaxation should be permissible in extraordinary circumstances. 

The counsel appearing for CBSE opposed the petition, arguing that strict adherence to NEP guidelines and CBSE bye-laws was necessary. It was argued that admission to secondary classes required compliance with age limits fixed by the State or Union Territory.  It was contended that the Rules are governing the case of the petitioner they are required to be strictly followed and there is no provision for grant of any relaxation in the age as it is the policy decision taken by the Government while framing the National Education Policy, 2020. 

The court noted that the petitioner was a 'brilliant student having overall excellent academic records'. The court observed that while Clause 4.1 of NEP, 2020, was framed to align education with development needs, it was not mandatory in nature and did not account for students with extraordinary intellectual capacity. 

The court noted that the academic session and the classes have already commenced. The court further opined that the NEP 2020 was not mandatory in nature. "However, it does not speak of what is to be done in case when the student is exceptionally brilliant and is able to understand the pros and cons", the bench stated. 

The bench further added, "Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides Right to Education. Right to Education cannot be curtailed by imposing a condition regarding age limit. There are several instances which point out that if an underage child can perform exceptional qualities of such student/candidates cannot be suppressed or overlooked merely on the ground of he being underage". 

Allowing the petition, the court directed the institute to provide provisional admission in Class IX and directed the student to file a representation to Chairman of CBSE. 

The court also directed petitioner to appear before the Medical Board of three Experts including the Psychiatrist and a Counsellor to evaluate the IQ level of the petitioner, who shall give the report regarding IQ level of the petitioner to the Principal of the Institution within 15 days. The report shall be forwarded by the Principal of the Institution to the Chairman of the CBSE Board who shall take into consideration the said IQ test report while deciding the representation of the petitioner.

Case Title: Aarav Singh v Union of India (WP-13186-2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 179

For Petitioner: Advocate Hitendra Kumar Golhani

For Respondent: Advocates Arnav Tiwari, Rajesh Maindiretta and Aditya Awasthi

Click here to read the Order