Children Pushed Into 'Terrible Rat Race' As Education Becomes Mere Means To Secure Medical Or Engineering Seats: Madras High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the CBSE Regional Director to permit a Class XII student to appear in Mathematics as an additional subject in the Senior School Certificate Examination, subject to the student furnishing proof of having studied the subject during Class XI. The court lamented that education was being prioritised solely for securing medical or engineering seats, with parents pushing children into a rat race — nudging them to pick easier subjects so the child could concentrate on just three subjects to clear the NEET examination, and in high schools, even going to the extent of sacrificing the mother tongue to keep the focus on NEET preparation — a strategy that proved unsuccessful in the present case.
The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order issued by the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner’s daughter to appear for Mathematics as an additional subject in the Senior School Certificate Examination 2025–2026 as a private candidate. The petitioner contended that the student had originally studied in Class XI under the CBSE stream with subjects including English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. The student continued studying Mathematics throughout Class XI and for some period during Class XII.
According to the petitioner, while submitting subject details to the CBSE authorities, the subject of Mathematics was replaced with Physical Education following advice related to preparation for the NEET examination and the intention to pursue medical studies. The petitioner submitted that the student did not succeed in the NEET examination and therefore sought permission to take Mathematics as an additional subject so that the student could pursue admission in engineering courses.
The petitioner relied upon the CBSE scheme permitting an additional subject under bye-law 43 and argued that the request was wrongly rejected by the impugned order dated 08.01.2026. The respondents contended that the bye-law allowing additional subjects would not apply because the student had studied Physical Education in Classes XI and XII and had not studied Mathematics as a subject for the required duration. They submitted that the option to take an additional subject must be exercised in Class XI and that eligibility for board examinations requires a candidate to study each subject for two academic years.
The Madras High Court recorded pointed observations on the state of school education in India, noting a growing tendency among parents to reduce education to a means of securing professional college admissions rather than genuine learning.
The court observed, "Education = Learning throughout the world. But, in this part of the world, education = admission to medical seat or engineering seat. Parents make the children to run the terrible rat race. In the madness, all kinds of subject change, as the one done here by choosing subjects which they think lighter all happen. In high school, even mother tongue is sacrificed to take other easier subjects. These are all practiced by the parents thinking that if the child studies three subjects alone, she will come out with flying colours in the NEET examination, which ultimately was not to be in the present case and now, the child finds itself in the crossroads."
Turning to the facts before it, the court recorded that the student's actual academic history could not be ignored in favour of procedural rigidity. It stated, "the fact remains that the child studied Mathematics throughout the XI standard and upto some time, in the XII standard."
On the question of relief, the court observed that "ultimately, the law should lean in favour of correcting the other procedures towards truth" and recorded that "the relief should lean in favour of permitting the student to write the Mathematics as a subject, since an additional subject is permitted."
The court clarified that the directions were specific to the facts of this case, stating that "the above directions are issued in the peculiar facts of the instant case."
The Court directed that “the petitioner, along with the minor student, shall appear before the third respondent on or before 03.03.2026 along with the web-copy of this order and provide such proof for the students studying the subject of Mathematics in the XI standard and also some period in the XII student. Any other note books, homework written by the student and the other evaluations made, apart from the certificate given by the school and all other proof, the student shall be presented before the third respondent.”
“If the third respondent satisfied that the petitioner has, in fact, studied Mathematics to a considerable period of time, that is throughout XI standard and to some period, in the XII standard, then, an opportunity can be granted to the student to take up Mathematics as an additional subject and the student be permitted to write the supplementary examination and as per which, the result can be declared and the mark sheet can be issued to the student. The above directions are issued in the peculiar facts of the instant case” and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs while closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Baskar, Central Government Standing Counsel; Mr. T. Sri Krishna Bhagavat
Case Title: B. Shajimon v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: MHC:821
Case Number: W.P. No.3376 of 2026
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
