Opinion Rajasthan’s Coaching Centre Bill lets down the very students it claims to protect
Given the devastating history of student suicides in coaching centres, questions have been raised about clauses that were initially proposed and then dropped by the government.
Intended to rein in the coaching industry and its exploitative practices, the Bill was projected to be a welfare measure for students. (File Photo) 
The Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2025, recently tabled in the state assembly has led to much debate and caused valid concern. Intended to rein in the coaching industry and its exploitative practices, the Bill was projected to be a welfare measure for students. However, given the devastating history of student suicides in coaching centres, questions have been raised about clauses that were initially proposed and then dropped by the government. These concerned the age limit of 16 years and a mandatory admission test to see if the candidate had the basic knowledge, aptitude and interest required for entrance examinations in medicine, engineering or law.
One recalls the surreal photograph of a “safety net” cast over the open terrace of a coaching centre when, two years ago, a public outcry had led to demands to make the buildings “suicide proof”. This Bill seems to be framing and tackling the “problem” through mechanical solutions, with similar uncaring complacence. Measures like mandating registration, limiting classes to five hours a day, no tests on Sundays, “remedial” classes for those who lag behind, provisions for counselling, allowing refunds if students leave midway, and penalties for violations may sound reasonable, but can these change the toxic ecosystem of the industry? Is it not unreasonable to assume that a few rules can transform the experience of being trapped in a cut-throat environment to that of flourishing in a nurturing nest?
Indeed, it is a cruel gamble, when children know that their families have mortgaged their land and a future, without even knowing if they can or wish to undergo the unrelenting drilling required for the NEET or JEE. They are deprived of a friendly environment, where peer support — which is known to help children learn better and deeper, through discussion, explorations and creative curiosity — is missing. Students confess that they feel lonely in these regimented confines, where they are advised not to waste time building friendships with those who are competitors. They are burdened with the moral and economic responsibility of not letting their parents’ aspirations and investment go down the drain. When they do not qualify in the first go, they feel obliged to work harder the next year, spending still more money. But the coaching and extracting carries on, knowing well that the students’ chances of making it are indeed minuscule. No one shares with the students the probabilities of getting admission to a public university or college for medicine or engineering.
Incidentally, after the NEET results fiasco last year, it was publicly discussed how half the NEET seats are in private institutes and are virtually “reserved” for a very small percentage of those who qualify (even with very low marks) and can pay lakhs, or even crores, as fees. Many students had strongly protested about serious test anomalies, and the Supreme Court hearings had revealed critical data that needed more analysis, investigation, public dissemination and serious action. Unfortunately, the judgment let the students down, burying the problematic implications of a centralised National Testing Agency conducting mega tests with multiple-choice questions, which do not assess students’ understanding but promote test-drilling by a commercialised coaching industry.
More worryingly, this ecosystem devalues the process of schooling itself, with no cognisance of performance in school-leaving examinations. It has also led to a huge shadow industry of “dummy” schools linked to coaching institutes, which are paid to provide false attendance records of young children, for when they later take the board examinations. However, the Union government continues to push for centralisation — it has mandated the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) for admission to Central and other universities, which exacerbates commercialisation, privileges those from schools affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), and disadvantages students from state boards. It also disadvantages girls and those without digital devices, who cannot pay for coaching in online test-taking.
I have met young students in smaller cities and towns being sent to coaching institutes. They are trained to “crack” (an unfortunately violent goal!) the professional entrance tests — with a narrow and early focus on science and mathematics. They are deprived of learning the humanities, social sciences and the arts, along with other curricular activities. Ironically, in a recent television discussion on the Rajasthan Bill, a representative of the coaching industry justified it on the grounds of the child’s right to be coached! No age limit should be set at 16 years; according to him, younger children with inadequate schooling, parents who are not educated or are busy working, need a coaching institute for board examinations. Social expectations and opinions are shaped by front-page advertisements and social media narratives, whereby children become pawns in mega gambles, and are made to feel solely responsible for winning or losing the game, with lifelong repercussions.
Moreover, state governments are not only supporting the coaching industry and absolving themselves of the duty to ensure the rights of children and their constitutional role in providing quality, inclusive education to all. They also accord legitimacy to coaching institutes and draw on their employees, instead of investing in and developing professionally trained teachers. Last year, the Bihar government put out a Request For Proposal for the “Empanelment of Professional Educational Institutes for Academic Support” for 9,000 senior secondary schools. The lowest-cost “bid” for classes during school time, in science, mathematics, computer science, and language, had to be from a bidder registered under the Bihar Coaching Institute (C&R) Act, 2010, with an “average annual turnover of Rs 10 crore or more in the last three financial years… From coaching business” (sic). The minimum qualifications required a master’s or BTech, but no professional education degree.
(The writer is professor, DU and former chairperson, NCERT primary textbook development committees)
Share
