Law Notify : The Madras High Court has set aside a directive issued by the Tamil Nadu Education Department that required government-run model schools to collect sensitive personal and socio-cultural information from students, holding that the exercise was unconstitutional and violated the right to informational privacy.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan ruled that the impugned directive lacked a clearly defined statutory purpose, failed the proportionality test, and resulted in discriminatory treatment of students from marginalised and vulnerable backgrounds. Allowing the writ petition filed in Ameer Alam vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that indiscriminate collection of personal data from minors, particularly details relating to social origin, family circumstances, and personal vulnerabilities, amounted to an abuse of executive power and could not be sustained under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench underscored that the right to privacy, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India, applies with equal, if not greater, force to children, who are entitled to heightened constitutional protection. It observed that the nature of the information sought, and the proposal to digitise and store it through the Education Management Information System portal, constituted a serious intrusion into students’ decisional and informational autonomy.
The Court further noted that compelling students to disclose stigmatic attributes would single them out and demoralise children from disadvantaged social groups, thereby violating the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The challenge arose from proceedings dated September 4, 2025, issued by the Member Secretary of the Model Schools under the School Education Department, directing schools to collect data from students studying in Classes IX to XII. The questionnaire contained 25 indicators seeking detailed information on caste and community background, migratory or refugee status, family substance abuse, exposure to violence, and aspects of gender identity.
Teachers were instructed to obtain this information directly from students and upload it to a centralised digital platform, raising concerns over data security, informed consent, and the potential for secondary use. The petitioner argued that the exercise amounted to unlawful profiling and exposed minors to stigma, labelling, and possible exclusion within the education system.
While the state justified the measure as necessary for targeted interventions and student welfare, the Court found the explanation vague and unsupported by material on record. It held that the state had failed to establish a rational nexus between the data sought and any legitimate governmental objective.
The Bench also rejected the state’s reliance on the doctrine of parens patriae, observing that protective jurisdiction over minors cannot be used as a pretext to intrude into constitutionally protected zones of privacy without a compelling and narrowly tailored justification.
Applying the proportionality doctrine developed in privacy jurisprudence, the Court concluded that the directive did not meet the requirements of legality, necessity, or least restrictive means. It cautioned that any state-led data collection involving minors must be backed by clear legislative authority, robust procedural safeguards, and a demonstrable public interest, especially when sensitive personal data is involved.
Concluding that the directive would have a chilling effect on students and reinforce social exclusion, the High Court held that welfare-oriented governance cannot override the dignity, autonomy, and constitutional rights of children studying in publicly funded educational institutions.
