The recent directive mandating the academic year in Goa to commence in April 2025 under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has ignited concerns among parents and educators alike.
The transition from the existing June start to an April academic calendar has been perceived as impractical, given the state’s climatic and socioeconomic conditions.
While the NEP 2020 seeks to unify educational structures across India, its constitutional validity and feasibility in Goa require a closer examination.
Constitutional mandate on education and State autonomy:
Education in India is a subject listed under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, allowing both the Centre and the States to legislate on it. Article 246 read with Entry 25 of the Concurrent List vests this authority, but a key question arises as to what extent can the Union dictate uniform policies without accommodating regional specificities?
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that education policies must align with constitutional guarantees under Part III, particularly:
● the Right to Education (Article 21A),
● the Right to Equality (Article 14), and
● the Right to Culture and Language (Articles 29 and 30).
In State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011), it was held that education policies must be tailored to regional realities.
Similarly, in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), the autonomy of states and educational institutions had been reaffirmed.
Goa’s unique cultural and climatic factors raise doubts about the feasibility of imposing a nationwide calendar shift. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
India, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), is obligated to uphold the fundamental rights of children, including their right to education and self-development.
Article 29 of the UNCRC mandates that education should be designed to prepare children for a fulfilling life while respecting their cultural and environmental contexts.
A unilateral academic shift disregards the disruption it may cause to students' psychological well-being, extracurricular activities, and family structures.
Moreover, Article 31 of the UNCRC recognises the child's right to rest, leisure, and participation in cultural life.
The scorching summer heat of Goa, extending from April to May, renders an early academic start unsuitable for the well-being of students, particularly those from economically weaker sections who may lack access to adequate cooling facilities.
Feasibility concerns and administrative drawbacks:
The transition to an April start date would also present logistical hurdles.
Goa’s tourism-driven economy thrives during the summer months, with many families engaged in the sector.
A calendar shift could disrupt household incomes, particularly in family-run businesses.
Additionally, existing examination schedules, vacation planning, and institutional timetables must undergo substantial restructuring.
Administrative concerns extend to infrastructure readiness, as government and private schools may struggle to implement climate-controlled learning environments.
The recent judgment in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009), which mandated safe school conditions under Article 21, highlights the need for climate-sensitive educational policies. Judicial recourse and the role of the High Court:
Through the auspices of the hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa which possesses the original jurisdiction to examine whether an April start date for the new Academic Year may threaten the application of constitutional guarantees.
Specifically, the Right to Equality (Article 14) could be invoked on the ground that the policy discriminates against students in climatically diverse states.
Moreover, the Right to Education (Article 21A) could also be argued, citing the undue hardship imposed on children due to climatic conditions.
Further, in Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala (1997), it was observed that any policy formulated must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The arbitrary enforcement of an academic calendar without due consultation with state stakeholders could be challenged under this precedent. Political motives and the question of policy expediency:
The timing of this implementation raises questions about whether the policy is driven by genuine educational reforms or is a move to align with the ruling party’s central leadership.
Education Ministers of states governed by the same ruling coalition at the Centre have been seen aggressively pushing for rapid implementation of NEP 2020, even in states where contextual adaptation remains unaddressed.
This decision may reflect an attempt to demonstrate allegiance to the Union government rather than prioritising the well-being of students and parents. The need for a well-researched and inclusive approach to policy formulation remains paramount. In summing up:
The shift to an April academic year in Goa under NEP 2020 raises critical constitutional and logistical concerns. While national uniformity in education has its advantages, policy decisions must align with local realities.
The hon’ble High Court could provide a judicial review of the executive decision’s constitutional validity under Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
Ultimately, education policies must ensure the holistic development of children, as enshrined in constitutional and international legal frameworks, rather than serve political interests.
