THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2026 Sri Kamaraj Vidyalaya Primary School, Represented by its Correspondent Mr.Y. Balasubramani, M/63 ,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

Sri Kamaraj Vidyalaya Primary School,
Represented by its Correspondent
Mr.Y. Balasubramani, M/63 ,
S/o Yellanna
Suburaj Nagar,
Bodinayakanur,
Tamil Nadu – 625 513 … Petitioner
-Vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.

2. The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St George,
Chennai – 600009.
… …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, Y. Balasubramani, S/o. Yellanna, aged about 63 years, working as Correspondent, Sri Kamaraj Vidyalaya Primary School, Suburaj Nagar,
Bodinayakanur, Theni District Tamil Nadu – 625 513 & residing at No 2, 15th street,Subrajanangar, Bodinayakanur, Theni District Tamil Nadu – 625 513, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

I respectfully submit that I am the correspondent of Sri Kamaraj Vidyalaya Primary School, Suburaj Nagar,
1. Bodinayakanur, Theni District _________the Petitioner herein and am well acquainted with the facts of the present case.

2. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner School has been recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide order _______________ and since __________ the Petitioner School is functioning.

3. I respectfully submit that the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of declaration, declaring Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, as amended by Gazette Notification No. SRO A-S(b)/2026 dated 02 March 2026, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the Parent Act, and consequently strike down the same.

4. I respectfully submit that at first glance, the recent amendment to the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, issued through Gazette Notification No. SRO A-S(b)/2026 dated 02 March 2026, may appear harmless. It seeks to regulate activities within private school premises in the interest of order and discipline. However, a closer examination reveals that the issue goes far deeper. The amended Rule 4, in particular, is so broadly framed that it risks becoming a tool of sweeping control rather than measured regulation, enabling the State to prohibit virtually anything that may not align with the sensibilities of the ruling dispensation.

5. The impugned rule is reproduced hereunder: –
“(4) (a) No school premises shall be used, whether during or outside school hours, for organising, conducting, or facilitating any programme, meeting, campaign, instruction, or any activity by any external person, association, or organisation which is in the nature of:
(i) political or ideological;
(ii) communal or divisive; or
(iii) otherwise, unrelated to the educational objectives of the school.
(b) Cultural events, social service programmes, blood donation camps, commemorative functions, or similar activities shall be permitted only if they are non-sectarian, non-political, and conducted under the direct supervision and responsibility of the educational agency, and subject to such prior permission of the competent authority or any other authority as may be specified by the Government.
Explanation –
For the purposes of this sub-rule, “communal or divisive activity” means any activity which is intended or likely to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will among students on the basis of religion, race, caste, community, language, or ideology, or which undermines the objectives and inclusive character of the private school.”

6. I respectfully submit that the first cause for concern lies in the prohibition of “political or ideological activities” within private school premises. While the appearance may ostensibly be to keep party and electoral politics out of educational spaces, the breadth of these terms renders the provision deeply problematic. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “political” refers to anything “connected with the state, government or public affairs.” This definition extends far beyond electoral politics. Activities such as Model United Nations simulations, student parliaments, or even guest lectures on constitutional governance and public policy could easily fall within its ambit. Courts themselves, as organs of the State, are undeniably political institutions in this broader sense. If the impugned rule is allowed to operate in its full amplitude, it risks penalising precisely those engagements that cultivate civic awareness and democratic understanding among students.

7. I respectfully submit that the term “ideological” is equally expansive. Defined as “a set of ideas that an economic or political system is based on,” it encompasses a wide range of academic discourse. Social sciences textbooks of schools themselves introduce students to competing economic ideologies such as socialism and capitalism. Now a lecture by an economist comparing laissez-faire principles with socialist models is now being rendered illegal. The logical consequence of such a prohibition is the stifling of intellectual inquiry.

8. I respectfully submit that equally troubling is the prohibition of “communal or divisive activities.”. The absence of any definition renders the provision vague and open-ended. What constitutes “divisive” is inherently subjective and not defined in the rules and the determination is left to administrative discretion. This creates a real risk of selective enforcement. Organisations or individuals espousing views that are lawful but inconvenient to the ruling establishment could be excluded from school spaces. Such vagueness is antithetical to constitutional and prone to arbitrary State action. The petitioner school, deeply inspired by the values of Bharat Ratna K Kamarajar and Swami Vivekenananda, is likely to be affected by these vague regulations.

9. I respectfully submit that the rule further prohibits activities “unrelated to the educational objectives of the school,” a regulation that curtails the little discretion of educational institutions. Schools are not mere centres of rote learning. This is the petitioner school’s firm belief They are spaces for holistic development. Workshops, boot camps, leadership programmes, and engagements with civil society organisations play a vital role in shaping children into informed and responsible citizens. Yet, the amended rule effectively prevents schools from opening their premises, even outside school hours or during holidays, for such activities, even when conducted with the consent of the management and devoid of any political character. This not only undermines institutional autonomy but also weakens avenues for community engagement and nation-building.

10. I respectfully submit the requirement of prior permission from the competent authority for conducting even cultural activities adds another layer of overreach. In a state like Tamil Nadu, where celebrations such as Pongal or the commencement of school admissions on Vijayadashami are deeply rooted in social practice and followed by the petitioner school as well and subjecting such events to approval is excessive.

11. I respectfully submit that regulation of educational spaces is both necessary and legitimate. Schools must be insulated from activities that genuinely threaten public order. However, such regulation must be proportionate. The impugned Rule 4, in its present form, falls short on all counts and is prone to affect the petitioner school as well as other schools. In a democracy, that is a cost too high to ignore.

12. I respectfully submit that left with no other alternative remedy; this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India among following other grounds;
GROUNDS
A. The impugned rule is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

B. The cumulative effect of the impugned rule is to indirectly prohibit individuals from conducting lawful nationalist, cultural, and social workshops and boot camps, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1) (b), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

C. It was held thus in Modern Dental College: – “(a) A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage). (b) It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rational connection stage). (c) There must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity stage). (d) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right-holder (balancing stage).”

D. It was held thus in Anuradha Bhasin:- “1324.1. A law interfering with fundamental rights must be in pursuance of a legitimate State aim; 1324.2. The justification for rights-infringing measures that interfere with or limit the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties must be based on the existence of a rational connection between those measures, the situation in fact and the object sought to be achieved; 1324.3. The measures must be necessary to achieve the object and must not infringe rights to an extent greater than is necessary to fulfil the aim; 1324.4. Restrictions must not only serve legitimate purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them.”

E. In Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. R. Thamaraiselvam & Ors., the Supreme Court held that vague definitions, arbitrary classification, and the grant of unguided power are sufficient grounds to invalidate such action.

F. Many organizations have used school and college campuses to conduct boot camps and workshops on holidays, and the same falls within the scope of fundamental rights. The impugned rule imposes a blanket restriction on the use of school premises without any rational nexus.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order dispensing with the production of Gazette Notification No. SRO A-S(b)/2026 dated 02 March 2026, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, and thus render justice, as the petitioner school has been able to procure only a copy of the same.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order interim stay against the operation Impugned Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, as amended by Gazette Notification No. SRO A-S(b)/2026 dated 02 March 2026 pending the disposal of present Writ Petition and thus render justice.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, as amended by Gazette Notification No. SRO A-S(b)/2026 dated 02 March 2026, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the parent Act, and consequently strike down the same; and further issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai, BEFORE ME
On this day of March, 2026 and
Signed his name in my presence
ADVOCATE – CHENNAI