The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Delhi government's decision to suspend physical classes for students from nursery to Class 5 and shift entirely to online mode amid severe air pollution levels. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant described the measure as a temporary response to an "extreme situation", noting the approaching winter school break would soon provide relief. The court heard pleas from parents challenging the December 15 order, who advocated for a hybrid model to prevent learning loss and address inequities, particularly for children from economically weaker sections reliant on midday meals. However, the bench emphasised that exposing young children to daily travel in hazardous conditions posed significant health risks. It viewed the full online shift as a prudent policy choice prioritising vulnerable children's well-being. Judicial restraint was deemed appropriate, leaving such decisions to executive authorities rather than courts.

Parents' arguments highlighted potential discrimination, as hybrid options might favour those with access to online resources while forcing others into polluted environments. The court countered that hybrid modes could themselves create divisions, with affluent families opting for home learning equipped with safeguards like air purifiers, while poorer households lacked similar protections. It stressed these were policy matters requiring expert assessment, not judicial micromanagement. The Delhi government defended the order, citing a sharp deterioration in air quality over the weekend that necessitated urgent action beyond GRAP guidelines suggesting hybrid learning. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued the closure would also reduce vehicular emissions from school commutes. The bench acknowledged recurring annual pollution crises but focused on the short-term nature of the current directive.

While refusing to mandate hybrid classes for younger students, the Supreme Court left flexibility for future adjustments. It directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to evaluate options, including full closures, hybrid operations, or parental choice, based on evolving air quality and health data. This guidance applies prospectively, allowing authorities to adapt measures under GRAP Stage 4 restrictions, which include work-from-home mandates and vehicle curbs. The ruling aligns with broader observations on failed long-term pollution strategies, urging preventive planning over reactive emergencies.

Also Read: Malwa Poll Trends Show Close Contest as SAD, Congress Challenge AAP

The decision reinforces deference to administrative expertise in public health emergencies, particularly affecting children. It dismissed immediate challenges, disposing of the applications without altering the status quo. Parents from disadvantaged backgrounds raised concerns over lost nutrition from midday meals and inferior home air quality compared to filtered school environments.

This outcome maintains fully online classes for nursery to Class 5 until further notice or the winter break, with no compelled switch to hybrid mode. Higher classes continue under existing GRAP provisions, often allowing hybrid or physical attendance where feasible. The larger Delhi-NCR air pollution case resumes hearing on January 6, potentially addressing compensation for affected workers and enforcement lapses.

Overall, the Supreme Court's stance prioritises caution for young children's health while signalling openness to reviewed hybrid models in subsequent pollution episodes. Authorities retain discretion to balance education continuity with safety amid Delhi's persistent smog challenges. Stakeholders await CAQM deliberations for any post-break guidelines. The ruling underscores judicial limits in overriding temporary executive actions during crises.

Also Read: Police Confirm 14-Year-Old KISS Student Death was Homicide, Staff Arrested for Cover-Up