Opposition has intensified in Gujarat over an Education Department circular restricting unauthorised entry into schools and photography or videography without permission, with student groups and political parties arguing that child-safety rules must not reduce public oversight of government schools.
The Gujarat unit of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) submitted a written representation to the education minister, describing the circular as incomplete. NSUI said safer and higher-quality education requires more than controls on cameras and visitor access, and asked the state government to address alleged irregularities in private schools, fee increases and discrimination against students.
According to the representation, several private schools are allegedly increasing fees in violation of rules, placing an additional financial burden on parents. NSUI questioned why the government had not issued a statewide directive for investigations and action against schools that allegedly fail to comply with Fee Regulatory Committee rules. It also sought legal action against schools operating without the required government approvals and the publication of a list of such institutions.
NSUI further demanded action against schools accused of discriminating against students admitted under the Right to Education framework. Its demands include a statewide investigation into arbitrary fee collection, proceedings against school managements that violate Fee Regulatory Committee rules, closure of illegally operating schools and action where RTE students face unequal treatment.
The dispute has also drawn criticism from the Gujarat Congress. Manish Doshi, media convenor and spokesperson of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee, said child safety was essential but argued that the government could not use it to conceal administrative failures in government schools. He described government schools as public institutions funded by taxpayers rather than institutions belonging to any political party.
The Aam Aadmi Party also criticised the reported requirement that visitors obtain permission from the school principal before entering government schools. AAP state president Isudan Gadhvi alleged that the restriction was intended to prevent public scrutiny of deteriorating school facilities and administrative shortcomings. These allegations were made by the party and were not independently established in the supplied report.
The report states that violations of the visitor rules could, where applicable, attract action under laws including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However, the full text of the Education Department circular, its effective date, the precise definition of an unauthorised visitor and the enforcement procedure were not included in the available material.
The immediate issue is therefore not only who may enter a school or record images on its premises, but also how the state balances child protection with accountability in publicly funded institutions. The Education Department’s response to the political parties’ objections, and the detailed provisions of the circular, will determine how the new restrictions are implemented.
