A Gujarat Education Department circular restricting the entry of unauthorised people into schools and requiring permission for photography and videography has triggered protests from student and opposition groups, who say child safety measures must not weaken public oversight of schools.
The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), Gujarat, submitted a written representation to the state education minister, describing the circular as incomplete and inadequate. The organisation said a safe and quality education system was necessary for students and parents, but argued that rules focused only on cameras and school entry would not address wider concerns involving private schools.
According to the representation reported by Nav Gujarat Samay, NSUI questioned the alleged delay in investigating schools that impose fee increases in violation of rules and place an additional financial burden on parents. It also demanded action against schools that do not comply with Fee Regulatory Committee requirements, as well as the publication of a list of schools operating without the necessary government approvals.
NSUI further sought action against schools accused of discriminating against students admitted under the Right to Education framework. Its demands included a statewide investigation into arbitrary fee collection, legal action against school managements violating Fee Regulatory Committee rules, closure of unauthorised schools and enforcement of protections for RTE students.
The reported circular has also drawn criticism from Gujarat Congress. Congress media convenor and spokesperson Manish Doshi said child safety was essential, but alleged that the government could not use child protection as a reason to conceal administrative failures in government schools. He argued that government schools were public institutions funded through taxpayers’ money and should not be treated as the property of any political party.
The Aam Aadmi Party also criticised the reported restrictions. AAP state president Isudan Gadhvi claimed that visitors would need the headmaster’s permission before entering government schools and that violations could attract action under laws including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. These claims were made in the political response to the education department’s decision and were not independently detailed in the supplied report through the text of the circular itself.
Gadhvi alleged that the restrictions could prevent visitors from documenting problems in government schools, including damaged buildings and schools operating with limited staff. AAP leader Manoj Sorathiya similarly said that filing cases against people visiting schools would be inappropriate if the objective was to improve education and infrastructure.
The dispute places school access at the intersection of two administrative responsibilities: protecting children from unauthorised contact and maintaining accountability in publicly funded institutions. The supplied report does not reproduce the circular’s complete wording, specify its issue date or set out the exact process for granting visitor, photography or videography permissions. The education department’s detailed response to the political parties’ objections was also not included. The next point of clarity will therefore be the department’s formal explanation of the circular and how it will distinguish legitimate safety controls from restrictions on authorised public or institutional oversight.
