'Youngest Surgeon At 7, IIT At 12': MP High Court Cites Child Prodigies While Considering CBSE Plea On Age Bar For Class 9 Admission

In CBSE's appeal against the provisional admission granted to a 10-year-old child in class 9, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (October 6) took note of exceptional child prodigies, citing examples of a child who became the youngest surgeon at the age of 7 and a child who studied in IIT at 12. 

It thus questioned the rationale behind imposing rigid age restrictions in cases of extraordinary talent and granted time to the Union government to seek instructions from the concerned ministry.

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal ordered; 

"Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, Union, prays for some time to take instructions. As requested list on October 28, 2025".

The Single Bench had directed CBSE to consider provisional admission on a father's plea claiming that his 10-year-old son was allowed to study from class 1 to class 8 but was denied admission in class 9. However, the CBSE Chairman preferred this appeal, contending that the National Education Policy and Clause 6 of Chapter 3 of the Examination Bylaws do not permit admission of a 10-year-old child in class 9.

During the hearing today, the counsel representing the Union informed that the concerned ministry had been contacted, but no response had been received so far. 

At this stage, the bench observed;

"the day this matter was listed, on the next day again there was a reporting of a youngest surgeon in the country. How did that person become a surgeon at the age of 13 or 14?"

In response, Counsel for the Union submitted that there existed a specific clause under the National Education Policy prescribing the age criteria for admission to particular classes.

However, the bench noted that the child prodigies were already recognised in the country, orally remarking;

"There is a newspaper reporting of a youngest surgeon at 7, studies IIT at the age of 12. IIT is in India, so you are recognising children like this". 

Counsel for Union again informed that despite contacting the concerned ministry, no response had been received till date and requested a week's time to obtain instructions.

Further, the court inquired whether the child had been granted provisional admission; the counsel for the Student confirmed that the provisional admission had indeed been given. 

In the previous hearing, the court observed that exceptional students across the world have achieved remarkable feats at an early age and should not be restrained merely due to policy restrictions. The court also sought an explanation from the Central government regarding its policies on accommodating such child prodigies.

Case Title: Chairman v Aarav Singh (WA 2660/2025)

For Appellant: Advocate Rajesh Maindiratta

For Union: Advocate Arnav Tiwari

For State: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh