Subheadline: The draft legislation seeks tighter controls on coaching centres, but its space, age and operating rules could also determine which providers survive.
Standfirst: Maharashtra’s proposed regulation of private coaching centres has opened a larger question about how Mumbai’s education system is organised beyond the classroom. The draft Maharashtra Private Coaching Centers (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2026, would cap teaching at five hours a day, prohibit enrolment below the age of 13, require one square metre of built-up space per student, prevent performance-based segregation and ban integrated courses linking coaching centres with colleges. Coaching operators say the rules could force at least half of Mumbai’s classes to shut. A junior college teachers’ representative, however, argues that integrated arrangements have weakened the role of colleges. The debate is therefore not only about regulating private tuition. It is also about the use of educational buildings, the commercial relationship between colleges and coaching centres, and whether a common regulatory framework can account for the very different spaces in which Mumbai’s students study.
The immediate trigger is the release of the draft bill for public suggestions until September 4. The proposal follows demands for regulation of the coaching-class sector that, according to the report, have continued for at least 20 years. Its provisions bring together several concerns that are usually discussed separately: the age at which children enter coaching, the number of hours they spend there, the amount of floor space available to each student, the grouping of students by performance and the relationship between private coaching providers and junior colleges.
That combination makes the bill more than a set of operating rules. It would establish a regulatory definition of what a coaching centre can be, who it can enrol and how it can use space. The draft’s one-square-metre requirement is especially significant because it links legality to the physical capacity of each centre. Dilip Mehendale, president of the Association of Coaching Class Owners and Mentors, said the requirement could cause at least 50% of Mumbai’s coaching classes to close immediately, with nearly all centres operating in slum pockets potentially affected.
That estimate is an industry claim, not an independently established impact assessment in the supplied material. It nevertheless identifies the central implementation problem: a rule designed to improve safety or learning conditions can have very different consequences depending on the building stock available to operators. A centre working from a formally planned, spacious premises may be able to meet the requirement. A smaller provider operating in a dense or lower-income neighbourhood may not. The draft’s effect would therefore be shaped not only by its wording but by Mumbai’s uneven supply of compliant educational space.
The bill also proposes a five-hour daily teaching cap. The supplied report does not specify whether the limit would apply to each student, each course or the centre’s total teaching operations. That detail would be important because coaching centres commonly organise multiple batches across the day. The final regulatory text and implementation rules would need to clarify how the cap is measured and enforced. Without that clarity, the same provision could be interpreted as a limit on student workload or as a restriction on the number of classes a centre can conduct.
The proposed ban on students below 13 would create another boundary between school education and private coaching. Mehendale argued that the formative years require attention to foundational learning, while the draft would prevent children below that age from enrolling in coaching classes. The disagreement reflects two competing views of private education: one treats coaching as an extension of academic support, while the other treats it as a sector whose expansion should be limited, particularly for younger students.
The question is also spatial. If coaching is excluded for younger children, demand may shift toward schools, informal tutoring or household-based instruction, although the supplied material does not establish how families would respond. What the bill would clearly do is define an age threshold for access to commercial coaching. That threshold could affect how educational demand is distributed across schools, private centres and other forms of support, but the draft’s broader effect cannot be assessed without information on the number of affected students and centres.
The most contested provision appears to be the proposed ban on integrated courses. Under the model described in the report, coaching centres partner with colleges so that students complete much of their academic work at the coaching premises and attend college only once a week for laboratory practicals. The model is presented by its supporters as a response to the extensive Class 12 science syllabus. It is criticised by a representative of the Junior College Teachers Union as a commercial arrangement that has reduced colleges’ importance and weakened attendance monitoring.
Shriprakash Dixit, the union’s vice-president, said colleges were selecting arrangements that served their commercial interests and that coaching centres particularly preferred colleges where attendance monitoring was lax. These are serious claims about institutional practice, but the supplied report does not include attendance records, inspection findings or official investigations to establish their scale. They should therefore be understood as the position of a teachers’ representative in the policy debate, not as a verified description of every integrated course.
The competing account comes from Shlok Devani, an IIT Madras postgraduate who attended an integrated coaching class in Thane. He described the model as a logical evolution of the junior college system and said the college teaching he experienced was not at the level provided by the coaching class. His account illustrates why the model has attracted students and families: it combines formal college affiliation with intensive preparation in a specialised coaching environment.
The disagreement exposes an institutional gap. Integrated courses appear to sit between two systems with different responsibilities. Colleges are responsible for formal academic affiliation and practical education, while coaching centres provide exam-oriented teaching. The draft bill’s proposed ban would draw a sharper line between them, but the supplied material does not explain whether the government intends to strengthen colleges, create alternative arrangements for science students or establish a transition period for existing partnerships.
The proposal to prohibit performance-based segregation raises a different question about how classrooms are organised. The report says students are commonly divided into three or four levels according to performance. Mehendale and Devani defend the practice on the ground that students learn at different speeds. Devani said that being in an elite group allowed foundational concepts to be completed more quickly, while other students could receive more time per question.
The draft’s position appears to favour non-segregated enrolment, but the supplied material does not explain whether it would prohibit all differentiated teaching, restrict separate batches or simply prevent exclusion based on test performance. That distinction matters. A ban on discriminatory access would operate differently from a ban on instructional grouping. The regulatory language would need to specify whether the objective is equal access, common classroom treatment or a particular teaching method.
Across these provisions, the bill is attempting to regulate both educational practice and the built environment in which that practice takes place. The age restriction and teaching cap govern the student experience. The space requirement governs the physical premises. The integrated-course ban governs the institutional relationship between coaching centres and colleges. The rule on performance grouping governs classroom organisation. The draft therefore reaches beyond registration and licensing into the operating model of the sector.
That breadth may explain why the response has been unusually divided. The Consortium of Coaching Teachers and Institutes, comprising nine registered coaching-class associations, has said it will approach the court if the bill is passed in its current form. The threat of litigation indicates that the sector expects the final rules to affect existing business models, although no court case has yet been reported in the supplied material.
The public consultation is consequently important because the most consequential questions are not limited to whether regulation is necessary. They include how the one-square-metre rule would be calculated, whether existing centres would receive time to comply, how centres in dense or informal settlements would be treated, how integrated-course partnerships would be unwound and which authority would inspect and enforce the rules. The report confirms that the draft is open for suggestions, but it does not provide the proposed enforcement structure, penalties or transition arrangements.
The bill also raises a broader urban governance issue: regulation can redistribute access when it is applied to a city with unequal premises, incomes and institutional capacity. A uniform space standard may be easy to state, but its consequences will depend on where centres operate and what kinds of buildings they occupy. The supplied material does not establish whether smaller or lower-income neighbourhoods have fewer compliant centres, but the coaching association’s warning about slum-pocket centres points to that concern.
What the evidence confirms is that Maharashtra is moving toward a formal framework for a sector that has faced demands for regulation for two decades. It also confirms that the proposed framework would affect the number of students admitted, the hours of instruction, the amount of space per student, the organisation of classes and the relationship between coaching providers and colleges. What remains uncertain is the bill’s final wording, the government’s response to public suggestions, the scale of the affected sector and whether the proposed standards will be accompanied by inspection and transition mechanisms.
The next stage is the public consultation, which remains open until September 4. The substance of the submissions, any amendments before introduction and the response of the state government to the coaching associations, teachers’ union and student perspectives will determine whether the draft becomes a workable regulatory framework or faces prolonged legal and institutional resistance.
