Case Title: COACHING FEDERATION OF INDIA Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS., Diary No. 30149-2024
Background
A petition was filed by Coaching Federation of India against a Delhi High Court Order of December 2023, wherein a slew of directions were issued to effectively regulate the exercise of inspection of all coaching centres.
Deeming it frivolous, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs.1 lakh. However, it decided to take suo motu cognizance of the larger issue regarding the safety of coaching centres.
Issuing notice, the Court asked the Union Government and the Delhi Government to demonstrate the safety norms prescribed and the effective mechanism introduced.
While hearing the suo motu case arising out of the tragic flooding incident at Delhi’s Old Rajinder Nagar, in which 3 students lost their lives, the Supreme Court today called for an examination of the need for comprehensive guidelines/policy to ensure safe working of coaching centres.
The hearing began with Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appointed as Amicus Curiae, placing before the court a note of suggestions prepared by him. This note included a reference to 7 existing legislations, including a Model Draft Regulation prepared by the Centre at the national level.
In another section, the Amicus’ note identified broad areas which would require consideration by the Court ie fire safety, regulation of fee, student-to-classroom area ratio, student-to-teacher ratio, installation of CCTVs without violation of privacy, medical facility, mental healthcare, etc.
The Amicus further asserted that there shall be penal, vicarious liability of persons who own buildings/floors where coaching centres are run: “It can’t be that they are allow to go scot-free…opening a centre, then deaths take place, and then there is no liability…”.
Lastly, it was suggested that there shall be some oversight mechanism. Agreeing with this, Justice Kant said that the mechanism should also be permanent, so that steps can be taken to prevent untoward incidents.
Speaking of the legislative mandate of inclusive growth, Justice Kant further opined that coaching centres also need to be accommodative of students with special abilities and sensitive towards safety of girl students. “Premise (where the coaching centre is run) itself should be a very secure place…”, the judge said.
Emphasizing that there is nothing adversarial about the matter, Justice Kant also conveyed that there is a need for a uniform standard to be adopted by states/UTs to the extent possible. The judge underlined that even if coaching centres can’t have medical facilities independently, they can have contractual arrangements with hospitals, so that medical assistance can be provided in time.
Notably, at one point, the Amicus also suggested that the Court may implead all states/Union Territories in the matter. In response, Justice Kant said that the bench would first consider the case of NCR and then perhaps move on to other states/UTs.
