The Supreme Court on Friday expressed strong reservations about shutting schools or shifting children to online education as Delhi's air quality deteriorated to the 'severe' category, stating it would rather rely on expert recommendations underpinning the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) than anecdotal research or independent opinions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said it was reluctant to impose restrictions on children attending school. The bench stressed that physical classrooms offered a better quality of education and that the consequences of moving to online learning, including unequal access, had to be considered. The observations were made during the hearing of a suo motu case examining the regulatory framework governing air pollution in Delhi-NCR.
Why did the Supreme Court refuse to order school closures despite severe air quality?
The Court held that physical classrooms provide superior educational quality and a blanket shift to online classes would deepen the digital divide, effectively dividing students into 'haves and have-nots'. It ruled it would follow only the Commission for Air Quality Management's expert-backed GRAP framework, not anecdotal research.
CJI Surya Kant observed, 'We are loathe to put restrictions on children going to school because it is one thing to advocate online access, but the access to online education and quality of imparting education is all a questionable issue.' The bench added that the quality of education in a classroom with physical interaction would certainly be better.
The bench further flagged the digital divide, cautioning that a blanket shift to online classes could deepen existing inequalities among children, particularly those who lack access to devices, reliable internet connectivity, or an adequate learning environment at home. It said the move could further widen the gap between privileged and underprivileged students. 'Like commerce and trade, education should also have free access. It is going to be minimal restrictions at our behest. We are not going to further divide them into haves and have-nots,' the bench observed.
Medical Research And Age-Based Classification Questioned
The court also questioned whether there was credible medical research to support claims that younger children were more vulnerable to polluted air than older students, and whether the age-based classification of schoolchildren under pollution-control measures needed reconsideration. 'Have you taken a paediatrician's opinion? Any credible research?' the bench asked counsel, pointing out that there were no medically established or corroborated opinions before it to determine whether the lungs of younger children were less equipped to deal with polluted air.
The bench made clear that it would rely on the recommendations of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which, it said, took into account the views of experts, including medical professionals. 'We are final experts because we lend judicial support to the experts…we will go by experts,' the bench stated. It added that it was not interested in 'anecdotal research' and would be persuaded only by well-researched, peer-reviewed studies that could justify a departure from the existing expert framework. 'Whatever GRAP says, or there are peer reviews, credible research papers, we are not going to go by any persuasive opinions,' it said.
Delhi's Air Quality Context
The observations came against the backdrop of a sharp deterioration in Delhi's air quality. The city entered the 'severe' category, the worst grade on the government's pollution scale, at 6 am on Friday. The official Air Quality Index (AQI), which averages readings over the preceding 24 hours, stood at 391 at 10 am. However, hourly readings assessed as though each hour's air quality had persisted for an entire day showed all 59 monitoring stations in Delhi recorded 'severe' air quality every hour since 8 pm on Thursday, with the corresponding hourly index at 10 am reaching 453.
The bench noted that Delhi was likely to experience AQI levels above 300 from November onwards for the next several months. 'Poor' and 'very poor' air quality, it observed, had almost become normal during this period, and the immediate challenge was to prevent the situation from slipping into the 'severe' and 'severe plus' categories.
GRAP Framework And School Measures
Under the existing GRAP framework, hybrid classes are among the measures prescribed at higher pollution stages, rather than automatic school closures whenever air quality deteriorates. The CAQM's revised framework provides for hybrid classes at Stage III and further restrictions on educational institutions at subsequent stages. The Supreme Court indicated it would not depart from this expert-driven calibrated approach.
Aspect | Court's Position |
|---|---|
School Closure / Online Shift | Reluctant to impose; cites education quality and digital divide |
Decision Basis | CAQM expert recommendations under GRAP only |
Medical Evidence Requirement | Demands peer-reviewed, credible research; rejects anecdotal opinions |
Age-Based Vulnerability | Questions classification; no corroborated paediatric opinion on record |
Equity Concern | Online shift would create 'haves and have-nots' among students |
The bench's disposition makes clear that any further restrictions on physical schooling will flow exclusively from the CAQM's graded response mechanism, anchored in peer-reviewed expert consensus, rather than judicial improvisation prompted by daily air-quality spikes.