Supreme Court Declines PIL on Mandatory Biometric Attendance in Schools

The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking compulsory biometric attendance for school students across the country. The petition proposed the measure as a way to curb “dummy schools,” where students remain formally enrolled but may not regularly attend classes because of coaching or other commitments.

A bench comprising Justices P Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it was not inclined to consider the petition filed directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. The court dismissed the plea while granting petitioner and advocate N K Goswami permission to approach the appropriate High Court with the issues raised.

Goswami had sought directions to the Union and state governments to introduce biometric attendance systems in schools. The petition also requested a statutory restriction on the number of hours students may spend at coaching centres, citing concerns that some children devote extensive time to coaching while continuing their formal enrolment in regular schools.

Also Read: Kerala Bus Driver, Conductor Killed as Vehicle Crashes on Bengaluru-Mysuru Expressway

The plea further sought a mandatory code of conduct for coaching institutes. The proposed rules were intended to prevent centres from manipulating success figures or using photographs of high-performing students in advertisements in ways that could mislead families. It also called for greater transparency in the presentation of results and student achievements in promotional material.

Article 32 permits citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly to seek enforcement of their fundamental rights. In this case, the bench did not examine or decide the substantive merits of mandatory biometric attendance or the proposed coaching-centre regulations. Instead, it directed the petitioner towards the High Court as the appropriate forum for pursuing the matter.

The petition highlighted wider concerns surrounding irregular school attendance, dummy enrolments and students’ growing reliance on private coaching for competitive examinations. Although the Supreme Court refused to hear the PIL, its order left the petitioner free to raise the same questions before a High Court, where the proposed measures and their legal and practical implications could be considered.

Also Read: UGC NET 2026 Answer Key Awaited as NTA Cites Exam Scale