INTRODUCTION:

In Mehna Ibrahim v. State of Kerala (WP(PIL) No. 126/2025), the Kerala High Court has once again brought sharp focus to the long-pending issue of regulating daycare centres, creches, and pre-primary institutions across the State. The Public Interest Litigation is initiated by Advocate Mehna Ibrahim, a practicing lawyer and mother of a four-year-old child, who approached the Court due to the persistent lack of regulatory uniformity in early childhood education and care establishments. Her concern stemmed from the apparent gap between the State’s assurances made in 2021—as recorded in the judgment of Pretty Rachal Koshy v. Social Justice Department & Ors.—and the complete absence of implementing guidelines even after four years. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. took note of the government’s earlier assurance to issue a comprehensive executive order within two months, and whether the continued delay placed the State in breach of its own commitments. With senior officials Dr. Sharmila Mary Joseph, Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, and Dr. K. Vasuki, Secretary, General Education Department, appearing online pursuant to the Court’s directions, the Bench sought clarity on why the draft remained “under preparation” even in late 2025. The Court emphasised that such regulatory guidelines are urgently needed to standardise early childhood care, ensure child safety, and create legally enforceable norms for hundreds of unregulated daycare institutions across the State.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Leo Lukose, Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Rony Jose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham, and Ittoop Joy Thattil, submitted that the absence of regulatory oversight in Kerala’s early childhood care sector poses grave concerns for child safety, development, and holistic welfare. They argued that daycare centres and pre-primary institutions operate without uniform standards in infrastructure, staff qualifications, hygiene, training, child protection protocols, grievance mechanisms, or emergency measures. The petitioner contended that this regulatory vacuum could compromise the health, security, and developmental needs of young children, especially given the growing reliance of working parents on such centres.

The petitioner relied heavily on Pretty Rachal Koshy v. Social Justice Department & Ors., where the State government had expressly assured the High Court that it would issue an executive order within two months to address these very concerns. Despite this recorded promise, no such regulation was issued even years later. The petitioner argued that the State’s inaction not only violates the earlier judicial direction but also undermines the fundamental right to safety and welfare of children under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also stressed that unregulated private daycare centres can expose children to neglect, abuse, exploitation, or poor-quality care, and that the State bears a constitutional duty to regulate institutions responsible for children’s well-being. The plea sought immediate guidelines, mandatory quality standards, government monitoring, and an accountability mechanism to ensure transparency and uniformity across all early childhood centres in Kerala.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT:

Appearing through Senior Government Counsel and the presence of top-level Secretaries, the State government informed the Court that the work on drafting the guidelines was ongoing and had not yet reached completion. Officials submitted that the process involved interdepartmental coordination between the Women and Child Development Department and the General Education Department, as the guidelines had to integrate aspects of child protection, early education frameworks, infrastructure norms, and compliance with national policies.

The State conveyed that preliminary drafts were being examined, and stakeholder consultations were underway, suggesting that the government did not intend to delay implementation unnecessarily. The Secretaries also indicated that the draft would soon be placed before the competent authorities for finalization. The State’s representatives argued that the complexities involved in framing comprehensive regulations require time, given the need to harmonize them with national policies like the National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy, 2013, as well as guidelines issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

However, when questioned about the delay since 2021, the State did not have a satisfactory explanation beyond indicating administrative challenges and ongoing drafting exercises. The State maintained that the guidelines, once finalized, would create a robust regulatory framework addressing concerns raised by the petitioner, and sought time to complete the drafting process.

COURT’S JUDGMENT:

The Division Bench expressed serious concern over the prolonged delay in issuing guidelines despite the clear assurance given by the State in Pretty Rachal Koshy. The Court observed that the earlier directions were issued in 2021, and the promise to frame and publish guidelines within two months had remained unfulfilled for nearly four years. This, the Bench noted, placed the State dangerously close to breaching its obligations to the Court as well as its constitutional duty to safeguard young children.

The Court underscored the importance of regulating early childhood care institutions, observing that a child’s formative years are crucial and that daycare centres and pre-primary institutions play a vital role in shaping emotional, social, and cognitive development. The absence of basic regulations, the Court remarked, exposes children to vulnerabilities and deprives parents of transparency and accountability.

The Bench issued a clear ultimatum: the State must produce draft guidelines within two weeks. The Chief Justice stated that if the government could publish preliminary guidelines within that period, it could later modify or update them as necessary. However, further delay would not be tolerated, as it would amount to wilful non-compliance with the Court’s previous directions.

The Bench orally directed the officials:

“If it can be issued within 2 weeks, you go ahead with it. You can say that for the time being, the policy is this. Later on, you can always change. Otherwise, the State is in breach of the directions of this Court.”

The Court reiterated that the matter would be monitored, posting the case for further hearing on December 2, ensuring accountability in the State’s progress.

In conclusion, the Court’s judgment reaffirmed the constitutional mandate to protect the rights and welfare of children and stressed the need for a structured, enforceable framework to regulate early childhood institutions across Kerala.