Archive · 9 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Refuses PIL Seeking Mandatory Biometric School Attendance
A lawyer named N K Goswami went to India's highest court with an important request.
He wanted schools to use a special machine that checks fingerprints or faces to record student attendance.
This was meant to stop 'dummy' schools, where children are signed up but do not actually come to class.
He also asked for rules for coaching centres, which are extra classes students take to prepare for big exams.
He wanted a limit on how many hours students can spend there.
He wanted coaching centres to be honest about their results and not use photos of top students in a way that confuses people.
The judges listened but said they would not hear the case directly.
They told the lawyer to take his request to a High Court instead.
The judges said he was free to try again there.
This means the idea is not rejected forever, it just needs to be asked in a different court.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking mandatory biometric attendance for school students across the country.
A bench of Justices P Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declined to hear the plea filed under Article 32, giving the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court.
The PIL, filed by advocate N K Goswami, sought measures to curb 'dummy' schools where students are enrolled but may not attend regular classes.
The petition also called for a statutory limit on the number of hours school students can spend at coaching centres.
The plea sought a Code of Conduct for coaching centres to prevent manipulation of success data and misleading use of topper photographs in advertisements.
- Who
- A Supreme Court bench of Justices P Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, and petitioner-advocate N K Goswami.
- What
- The court refused to entertain a PIL seeking mandatory biometric attendance in schools and regulations on coaching centres.
- When
- Date not specified in the article.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The court was not inclined to hear the plea filed directly under Article 32 and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court; the PIL aimed to curb dummy schools and address growing dependence on coaching centres.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justices P Narasimha and Alok Aradhe
- Petitioner
- Advocate N K Goswami
- Petition Type
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32
- Outcome
- Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the High Court
- Key Demand 1
- Mandatory biometric attendance for school students
- Key Demand 2
- Statutory limit on coaching centre hours and Code of Conduct for coaching institutes