Introduction:
In the case titled LBS Convent School v. CBSE and other connected petitions [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 316], the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivered a strong judgment addressing the widespread practice of “dummy schools” where students in Classes IX to XII are shown as regular attendees in school records but are in fact absent, spending their time in coaching institutes for competitive exams like NEET and JEE. The Court emphasized that such manipulation of attendance registers and sponsorship of dummy candidates by schools in connivance with coaching centers had become a menace and a blight on India’s education system. The petitions arose when two schools challenged their de-affiliation orders passed by CBSE for one year due to multiple deficiencies, one of which included sponsoring non-attending students and falsifying records to mislead the Board. The High Court not only remitted the case back to CBSE for re-examination but also issued wide-ranging systemic directions to the State of Rajasthan, CBSE, and other education boards to tackle the menace of dummy schools.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by a large team of senior and junior counsels including Mr. R.B. Mathur, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, and others, argued that the CBSE’s decision to de-affiliate their schools was arbitrary and disproportionate. They contended that the alleged deficiencies noted by CBSE, including the charge of dummy candidates, had not been proven conclusively. The schools maintained that any irregularities, if at all, were administrative lapses and did not warrant the extreme punishment of de-affiliation which had far-reaching consequences for the students enrolled. It was further argued that CBSE had not applied consistent standards across different schools accused of similar practices and that selective targeting had taken place. The petitioners urged the High Court to set aside the de-affiliation order and allow them to continue functioning while ensuring compliance with future directions. They also argued that the parents’ choices and societal pressure for competitive exams should not be visited as punitive consequences upon the schools alone.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other hand, CBSE, represented by Mr. M.S. Raghav and Mr. Vishivas Saini, defended the de-affiliation orders as being justified in light of the schools’ blatant violation of norms. It was submitted that the practice of dummy candidates undermined the very purpose of secondary education, which was meant to ensure holistic development and not mere preparation for entrance examinations. CBSE argued that schools had a statutory and moral responsibility to ensure that students attended regular classes, but instead they colluded with parents and coaching institutes to manipulate records, thereby commercializing education. The respondents emphasized that such malpractices not only eroded academic integrity but also negatively impacted students’ mental health by reducing education to a one-dimensional pursuit of competitive exams. They highlighted that CBSE, as a national board, had to ensure uniformity and credibility across its affiliated institutions and therefore strict action like de-affiliation was warranted against erring schools.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered a scathing critique of the practice of dummy schools, observing that the phenomenon had reached alarming proportions and posed a grave threat to the education system. The Court noted that schools were manipulating attendance registers, showing students as present in classrooms when in reality they were attending coaching centres. The Court remarked that this not only violated the principles of education but also highlighted the dangerous nexus between schools, coaching institutes, and parents. It was observed that the commercialization and commodification of education had reduced schools to mere rubber stamps while coaching institutes became the actual centers of learning, a trend that was highly detrimental to the holistic development of students.
The Court issued significant directions aimed at curbing this practice. It directed the State of Rajasthan and all education boards to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) to conduct random surprise inspections in both schools and coaching centres. If during such inspections, students were found absent from schools but present in coaching institutes during school hours, strict legal action was to be taken against the schools, coaching centres, and all stakeholders involved. The Court also directed CBSE and the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education (RBSE) to conduct surprise inspections of schools regularly and to take action, including de-affiliation or de-recognition, where attendance of students and teachers was found lacking.
Importantly, the Court mandated that it was high time CBSE, RBSE, and other education boards framed strict bye-laws making it mandatory for students from Classes IX to XII to attend at least 75% of their classes. Parents were also to be made aware of this requirement to ensure accountability at home. The Court clarified that this measure was not only to ensure discipline but also to protect students’ academic futures, as those who failed to attend regular classes often found themselves unable to pursue alternate streams of education if they failed to qualify for NEET or JEE.
The Court remitted the case of the two petitioner schools back to CBSE with a direction to re-examine the matter and compare it with the cases of other similarly situated schools to ensure parity in treatment. Within four weeks, CBSE was directed to pass fresh orders after taking into account the comparative deficiencies. However, Justice Dhand did not shy away from expressing that the larger problem was systemic, and unless addressed collectively by boards, schools, coaching centres, parents, and the government, the menace of dummy schools would continue to persist.
The Court went further to comment on the psychological and societal impacts of the dummy school phenomenon. It observed that parents, driven by ambition, were pressurizing their children to pursue engineering and medical careers, overlooking their aptitude or personal aspirations. It was highlighted that only a limited number of seats existed in IITs and medical colleges, and that many students, having neglected their Class X to XII studies for coaching, found themselves stranded without options if they failed competitive exams. The Court stressed the need for parental counselling and freedom for students to choose their career paths. The State and education boards were thus directed to establish counselling centres in schools to guide both parents and students in making informed career choices and to reduce the pressure of forced academic streams.
The Court poignantly observed: “The proliferation of dummy schools is a symptom of a deeper crisis in India’s education system, rooted in the commercialization and commodification of education. The menace of dummy schools is a blight on India’s education system, undermining the principles of holistic learning and academic integrity.” By emphasizing the role of schools not just as exam-passing machines but as institutions meant to nurture holistic learning, the judgment attempted to restore balance to the educational ecosystem.
In conclusion, while remitting the petitioner schools’ case to CBSE for reconsideration, the Rajasthan High Court sent out a larger message to all stakeholders: education is not a commodity to be manipulated for competitive gains but a process of holistic learning that must be preserved. The directions issued by the Court, if implemented sincerely, have the potential to curtail the dummy school menace and restore faith in India’s secondary education system.