The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) has asked affiliated schools to certify themselves as drug-free and display approved signage, but the response from schools in and around Calcutta exposes a larger problem: a school can control its campus far more easily than the streets, shops and public spaces surrounding it. The Union government’s action plan defines a 500-metre radius around educational institutions as part of the effort to make them drug-free, yet schools say they do not have the authority to enforce that boundary.
CISCE’s circular followed a communication dated September 9, 2026, from the department of school education and literacy in the Ministry of Education. The council said the communication reiterated a key intervention under the action plan: the declaration of educational campuses as drug-free schools within a radius of 500 metres. Schools have been asked to display approved “drug-free school” signage at their entrances, outside their premises and within their campuses.
The signage is intended to be visible to students, parents and visitors and to serve as a public affirmation of a school’s commitment to a safe, healthy and drug-free learning environment. CISCE-affiliated schools had earlier been advised to participate in the three-year Nasha Mukt Vidyalaya Action Plan, covering 2026 to 2029, which seeks to promote safe, healthy, tobacco-free and drug-free school environments.
The policy’s design places schools at the centre of a problem that extends beyond their institutional boundaries. Schools can regulate entry, conduct awareness programmes, monitor student behaviour on campus and, in some cases, use CCTV cameras. They cannot, however, directly control tobacco sales outside their gates, activity on public roads or what happens in nearby shops and other premises.
That distinction is central to the implementation challenge. Terence John, director of education and development at Julien Day Schools in Calcutta, Howrah, Ganganagar and Kalyani, said schools could take preventive measures and counsel students, but could not enforce their will outside school premises. He said that responsibility belonged to the local administration and that schools had no means to control activity beyond the campus.
John also said tobacco shops were located much closer than 500 metres from schools in many places. His observation points to a gap between the policy’s measurable boundary and the administrative machinery needed to enforce it. A radius can be marked on a map, but compliance requires identification of shops, inspection, action against violations and continuing monitoring by authorities with the legal power to intervene.
Schools are already using several measures within their own premises. Some said CCTV cameras had made it easier to maintain tobacco- and drug-free campuses. Schools also conduct anti-addiction campaigns, while students participate in skits and street plays intended to spread awareness about the harmful effects of drug abuse.
National English School, Calcutta, said it could ask a tobacco seller outside the school to stop selling the products. If the seller continued, the school could inform the local police station, principal Mousumi Saha said. This places the school in the position of reporting a suspected violation rather than enforcing the rule itself. The effectiveness of the 500-metre policy therefore depends on how quickly and consistently the relevant local authorities respond to such reports.
Saha also said distance alone could not resolve the problem. A student could buy tobacco from a shop 600 metres away, beyond the specified radius, if awareness and preventive action were absent. During parent-teacher meetings, the school advises parents to check school bags occasionally and learn about their children’s friends and social circles, she said.
The point is significant for how the policy defines risk. A fixed perimeter is administratively convenient, but student exposure is not necessarily confined to that perimeter. Schools may be able to identify locations immediately outside their gates, but their influence over students’ movements and purchasing decisions diminishes as the distance increases. The source material does not establish how the 500-metre radius was selected or how authorities will respond when sales or exposure occur beyond it.
The presence of vaping among some students further complicates campus enforcement. Schools reported conducting random bag checks and said they had, at times, found children carrying vapes to school. The problem is not limited to what is sold outside the campus; it also involves how products reach students and how schools detect and address possession within their premises.
Sri Sri Academy principal Gargi Banerjee said teachers were not allowed to smoke and had clear instructions not to smoke in the vicinity of the school. Such rules extend the school’s internal code of conduct beyond the classroom, but they still rely on voluntary compliance or institutional discipline rather than the school’s authority over the surrounding public realm.
The government’s action plan therefore creates a layered responsibility. The school is expected to declare its campus drug-free, display the prescribed signage and conduct preventive education. Parents are being drawn into monitoring and awareness efforts. Local administration and police are expected to address activity outside the campus, including possible tobacco sales near schools. The source does not specify the division of responsibility between these authorities, the inspection process, penalties or a reporting mechanism for the 500-metre zone.
That absence matters because the policy is not simply an awareness campaign. By asking schools to certify themselves and display signage outside their premises, it gives the public a visible assurance about the environment around an educational institution. If the surrounding area remains difficult to monitor, the sign may communicate an aspiration without establishing how the claim will be tested.
Some principals are uncomfortable with that possibility. One principal said the school conducted awareness campaigns but questioned whether putting up a poster could draw unnecessary attention to drugs. This response reflects a second implementation issue: signage can make a policy visible, but it cannot substitute for prevention, counselling, enforcement or a clear account of what the declaration covers.
The schools’ accounts also show why a campus-based approach is easier to administer than a neighbourhood-based one. Inside the campus, the institution can set rules for students and teachers, regulate access and conduct checks. Outside, control is dispersed among shopkeepers, residents, police and local administrative bodies. Roads and shops are part of the wider urban environment, not extensions of the school’s internal management system.
The 500-metre proposal consequently raises a governance question that extends beyond schools: who is accountable for the transition between institutional property and public space? A school may be the most visible actor, but it does not control the entire area covered by the declaration. Without coordination with local authorities, the burden of demonstrating a drug-free environment may fall disproportionately on schools even when the underlying conditions are outside their legal or operational control.
The Nasha Mukt Vidyalaya Action Plan runs from 2026 to 2029, giving the programme a multi-year window rather than treating the directive as a one-time compliance exercise. During that period, the distinction between a declaration and an enforceable local programme will be important. Schools can document awareness drives, bag checks, CCTV use and internal restrictions. Authorities will need to establish how reports about nearby tobacco sellers and other concerns are received, verified and acted upon, although the supplied material does not yet set out such a framework.
The evidence currently confirms three separate realities. CISCE has asked schools to certify themselves as drug-free and display approved signage. Schools are taking preventive steps inside their campuses. School officials also say that they cannot control activity beyond their boundaries, including tobacco sales and exposure in nearby areas. Treating these realities as one problem risks assigning responsibility to the institution least able to enforce the full 500-metre zone.
The next stage of the policy will therefore be judged not only by how many schools display the signage, but by how the surrounding area is governed. The unresolved questions concern the authority responsible for enforcement outside campuses, the response to reported violations, and how schools will be assessed under the 2026-2029 action plan. Until those mechanisms are clearer, the declaration of a drug-free school will remain stronger inside the gate than on the streets around it.
