Nibeditaa SpeaksThe Gujarat government says new restrictions on school visits and photography are necessary to protect children’s privacy and safety. The AAP and Congress, however, warn that the rules could make it harder to expose teacher shortages, dilapidated buildings and other problems in government schools.
A new Gujarat government circular regulating entry into school premises has triggered a political controversy, with opposition parties accusing the BJP government of restricting public scrutiny of government schools under the pretext of child protection.
Issued by the state Education Department on October 21, the circular lays down nine instructions governing visits to primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. It requires outsiders to obtain prior written permission from the principal or head of the institution and restricts photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live streaming involving students, teachers or school activities without prior approval.
The government has defended the measures as necessary to safeguard students’ privacy, maintain security and ensure a peaceful learning environment. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress, however, argue that the restrictions could prevent parents, journalists and citizens from documenting problems in publicly funded schools.
The dispute has also raised questions about how schools can protect children while remaining accountable to the communities they serve.
What Gujarat’s new school entry circular says
Under the October 21 circular, external visitors must obtain written permission before entering school premises. Their details must be recorded in a visitors’ register, and anyone entering areas where students are present must be accompanied by the principal, a teacher or another authorised school official.
Photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live streaming involving students, teachers or school activities are restricted without the principal’s prior written permission. The instructions also direct school authorities to prevent the collection or circulation of photographs, videos and personal information that could compromise students’ privacy, dignity or safety.
Government officials authorised to perform their official duties are exempt from the prior-permission requirement.
The circular further directs school authorities to inform the police and relevant education officials if someone enters without permission, refuses to leave, attempts unauthorised recording or obstructs school functioning.
Depending on the circumstances, action may be initiated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
While the government says these safeguards are intended to protect students, opposition parties have questioned how the restrictions will affect legitimate visits by parents, journalists and members of the public seeking information about school conditions.
AAP alleges restrictions could conceal school deficiencies
AAP Gujarat president Isudan Gadhvi accused the BJP government of using the circular to limit scrutiny of government schools ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections.
Gadhvi argued that the rules could prevent people from documenting problems such as deteriorating school buildings and teacher shortages. He described the notification as an insult to children studying in government schools and their parents.
He also alleged that the government was seeking to prevent the condition of schools, including institutions operating with a single teacher and those housed in dilapidated buildings, from becoming an election issue.
Gadhvi further questioned the invocation of child-protection legislation in the context of the restrictions, arguing that it could discourage young people and parents from raising concerns about public education.
These are allegations made by the opposition; the supplied account does not establish that concealing school deficiencies was the government’s purpose in issuing the circular.
Congress questions the impact on public accountability
The Congress has also criticised the restrictions, arguing that child safety and administrative transparency should not be treated as competing priorities.
Party spokesperson and media convenor Dr Manish Doshi said the government had a responsibility to protect children but should not use that responsibility to shield administrative failures from public scrutiny.
Doshi argued that government schools are public institutions funded by taxpayers and that restrictions on cameras would not resolve problems involving teacher vacancies, unsafe buildings, inadequate classrooms, unhygienic toilets and insufficient access to drinking water.
Citing figures he attributed to the state’s education system, Doshi claimed Gujarat had around 40,000 vacant teacher posts and approximately 42,000 dilapidated rooms. He also alleged that nearly 3,000 schools were operating with a single teacher, serving more than 80,000 children, while students in 14,562 schools were being taught across multiple grades together.
The figures were presented by the Congress spokesperson and have not been independently verified in the material available for this report.
Doshi also questioned whether the same privacy and safety standards were consistently applied when students appeared at government programmes, school enrolment drives and political events.
The Congress maintained that children’s identities and personal information must be protected but argued that child-protection laws should not be used to intimidate people raising legitimate public-interest concerns.
“The government’s first duty is to improve the condition of schools, not to stop those who bring their condition to public attention,” Doshi said.
The party has demanded a review of the circular, clearer provisions for parents and school management committees, and transparent guidelines for journalists and citizens.
BJP defends restrictions as necessary for child safety
The BJP has rejected the opposition’s criticism, maintaining that school authorities must be able to regulate access to premises where children are present.
Responding to the objections, BJP Gujarat state chief spokesperson Dr Anil Patel accused the opposition of creating controversy around the government’s work.
Patel said unauthorised entry and photography or videography were prohibited because authorities had a responsibility to ensure children’s safety and maintain a peaceful school environment.
He also argued that allowing people to enter schools without authorisation could create disorder and an atmosphere of fear.
The government’s position centres on the need to control access to school premises and prevent the unauthorised recording or circulation of information about children.
However, the supplied account does not specify whether the Education Department has introduced a separate procedure for journalists investigating public-interest issues or for parents seeking to document complaints about school infrastructure.
Child protection versus transparency in government schools
The controversy highlights a difficult question for public education authorities: how can schools prevent unauthorised access and protect students’ privacy without unnecessarily limiting legitimate scrutiny of publicly funded institutions?
Schools have a responsibility to protect children from the misuse of photographs, videos and personal information. At the same time, parents and citizens need credible ways to raise concerns about infrastructure, staffing and the quality of education.
The Congress has called for clearer rules that distinguish legitimate public-interest activities from unauthorised recording. Such clarity could help parents, school management committees and journalists understand how to seek permission and document concerns without compromising children’s safety.
For now, the political dispute centres on the scope and implementation of Gujarat’s new school entry rules. The effectiveness of the circular will depend not only on how strictly access is regulated, but also on whether transparent channels remain available for reporting problems in government schools.
The larger challenge is to ensure that protecting students and holding public institutions accountable remain complementary responsibilities rather than opposing goals.
Add comment