“Directory, Not Mandatory” – The Madhya Pradesh High Court Declares NEP-2020 Age Norms Relaxable for Exceptionally Meritorious Students

1. Introduction

The decision in Aarav Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 MPHC-JBP 39576) deals with a minor prodigy whose progression to Class IX was blocked by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and his own school on the ground that he had not attained the prescribed age envisaged under clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP-2020). Justice Vishal Mishra, sitting at the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was asked to decide whether the rigid age prescription could be relaxed in favour of a demonstrably outstanding child and, if so, under what framework.

Key questions before the Court:

Is clause 4.1 of NEP-2020 a mandatory bar or a directory guideline?
Does strict enforcement of the age criterion violate the child’s fundamental right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution?
What role do the CBSE bye-laws and precedent from other High Courts play in deciding such requests?

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court allowed the writ petition and held that:

Clause 4.1 of NEP-2020 is directory, not mandatory.
Where a child is “exceptionally brilliant”, denial of advancement solely on age grounds offends Article 21.
The CBSE and the school must grant provisional admission to Class IX while a three-member expert Medical Board re-assesses the petitioner’s IQ and maturity.
The child’s mother may file a representation to the CBSE Chairman, who shall take a final decision after considering the Medical Board’s report.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sameer Raj v. Union of India, Patna High Court (2024)
Directed CBSE Chairman to examine if an under-aged but meritorious student could be allowed to appear in higher classes.

Justice Mishra adopted the Patna approach of individualized assessment by a competent authority, treating it as persuasive authority for allowing a representation-and-consideration mechanism rather than outright refusal.
Kashvi (Minor) v. State of Himachal Pradesh, HP High Court (2022)
An eight-year-old prodigy was provisionally admitted to Class VIII; the Court ordered continuous monitoring of her physical, emotional and academic well-being.

This case furnished a structural blueprint—provisional admission plus periodic monitoring—which the Madhya Pradesh High Court replicated, highlighting judicial caution when minors leapfrog grades.
NTA v. Shree Harini, Madras High Court (2021)
Observed a conflict between CBSE’s flexible schooling age norms and Medical Council of India’s rigid age requirement for NEET; urged regulators to revisit rules.

Though relief was denied, the dicta emphasising “hard cases cannot make bad law” and the plea for regulatory reconciliation gave intellectual ballast to Justice Mishra’s conclusion that mechanical application of age bars produces injustice.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Directory vs. Mandatory: The Court undertook a textual reading of clause 4.1 of NEP-2020 and found no prohibitionary wording such as “shall not” or “must”. The purpose was developmental, not exclusionary. Therefore, it is directory.
Article 21 – Right to Education: A policy that suppresses a gifted child’s growth arguably violates the right to “life” and “personal liberty” which, post Mohini Jain and Unni Krishnan, encompasses the right to education.
Proportionality & Balancing: The Court balanced (i) the State’s interest in standardised schooling stages with (ii) the individual child’s right to realise his potential. Provisional admission and medical monitoring was deemed a proportionate response.
Absence of Statutory Bar: CBSE bye-law 6.1(iii) defers to the “age limit as determined by the State/UT”. Because the NEP is a policy and not a statute, the bye-law did not create an inexorable statutory bar.
Power to Relax: Even in the absence of an explicit relaxation clause, constitutional courts possess inherent power to mould relief when executive action results in manifest arbitrariness.

3.3 Potential Impact

Precedential Value: Although a single-judge decision, it furnishes persuasive authority for other states and boards, especially in writs involving prodigy children.
Policy Reconsideration: The judgment explicitly invites CBSE and the Ministry of Education to craft a structured exemption framework—likely prompting amendments or circulars.
Litigation Surge: Schools and boards may see more requests from parents of gifted children citing this case for grade-skipping or early board examinations.
Holistic Assessments: Greater reliance on psychological/IQ reports, multi-disciplinary boards and continuous monitoring may become the new norm for determining grade-advancement eligibility.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Directory v. Mandatory Provision: A mandatory rule must be followed; breach invalidates the act. A directory rule guides but can be departed from for good reason without rendering the act void.
Article 21 Right to Education: The Supreme Court has read the right to education into the broader right to life. Any State action that unreasonably restricts education can be struck down.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: When a public authority’s consistent past practice induces a reasonable belief of a certain treatment, departure without justification is unfair.
Provisional Admission: Temporary enrolment subject to later confirmation, allowing the student to attend classes while compliance or assessment is pending.
IQ, CQ, AQ: Intelligence, Creative, and Adversity Quotients are standardised measures assessing cognitive abilities, lateral thinking, and resilience respectively—used here as evidence of exceptional aptitude.

5. Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has carved out an important exception to rigid age-based schooling norms by recognising that NEP-2020’s stage-wise structure, though thoughtfully crafted, cannot override a child’s constitutional right to rapid intellectual advancement where unmistakably justified. By stamping clause 4.1 as directory and tying relief to rigorous expert evaluation, the Court creates a nuanced pathway: safeguarding both the welfare principle embedded in the NEP and the individual brilliance that falls outside its statistical average.

Key Takeaways

NEP-2020 age brackets are guidance, not an inflexible bar.
Exceptional merit can invoke constitutional protection under Article 21.
Courts may grant provisional advancement with medical and academic monitoring.
Regulators like CBSE should formulate transparent exemption procedures to avoid ad-hoc litigation.

— End of Commentary —