The Madras High Court has set aside a directive issued by the Tamil Nadu Education Department mandating the collection of sensitive personal and socio-cultural data from students enrolled in government-run model schools, holding the exercise to be constitutionally impermissible and violative of informational privacy.
The Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the impugned action lacked a clearly defined statutory purpose, failed the test of proportionality, and resulted in invidious discrimination against students from marginalised and vulnerable backgrounds.
While allowing the writ petition in Ameer Alam vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that indiscriminate data collection from minors, particularly relating to their social origin, family history, and personal vulnerabilities, amounted to an abuse of executive power and could not be sustained under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasised that the right to privacy, as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India, applied with equal, if not greater, force to children, who were entitled to heightened constitutional protection.
The Madurai Bench of the High Court noted that the nature of the information sought and the manner in which it was proposed to be documented and digitised through the Education Management Information System portal constituted a serious intrusion into the decisional and informational autonomy of students.
It further observed that compelling disclosure of stigmatic attributes would have the effect of singling out and demoralising children from disadvantaged social groups, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15.
The challenge arose from proceedings dated September 4, 2025, issued by the Member Secretary of the Model Schools under the School Education Department, directing institutions to collect data from students studying in Classes IX to XII.
The directive contained a questionnaire comprising 25 indicators, seeking granular details regarding students’ caste and community background, migratory or refugee status, familial substance abuse, experiences of violence, and issues relating to gender identity and conformity.
Teachers were required to elicit this information directly from students and upload it onto a centralised digital platform, raising concerns regarding data security, informed consent, and secondary use. The petitioner contended that the exercise amounted to unlawful profiling and exposed minors to stigma, labelling, and potential exclusion within the educational ecosystem.
While the state sought to justify the measure on the ground that the data would enable targeted intervention and student welfare, the Court found the explanation to be vague and unsubstantiated. It held that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate a rational nexus between the data sought and any legitimate state objective.
The Division Bench also rejected the invocation of the doctrine of parens patriae, observing that protective jurisdiction over minors could not be used as a pretext to intrude into constitutionally protected zones of privacy without a compelling and narrowly tailored justification.
Applying the proportionality doctrine, as developed in Puttaswamy and subsequent jurisprudence, the Court held that the impugned directive failed to satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity, and least restrictive means. It further cautioned that state-led data collection involving minors must be backed by clear legislative authority, procedural safeguards, and demonstrable public interest, particularly when dealing with sensitive personal data.
Noting that the directive would have a chilling effect on students and perpetuate social exclusion, the High Court held that welfare-oriented governance could not override the dignity, autonomy, and constitutional rights of children in the educational system, particularly within publicly funded educational institutions.
The post Madras High Court strikes down Tamil Nadu directive on student profiling appeared first on India Legal.