Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a minor student, against Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-05, Dwarka, New Delhi seeking specific directions relating to an incident wherein the petitioner faced disciplinary consequences for misusing a smartphone while in school. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., disposed of and issued guidelines for the use of smartphones in schools.
The petitioner, being a minor, challenged the disciplinary measures imposed by Kendriya Vidyalaya, arguing that they were excessive and arbitrary. The case raised concerns regarding the broader implications of smartphone usage by students and the lack of uniform guidelines on the matter. Consequently, the court considered the necessity of formulating a framework that could effectively balance the benefits and risks associated with smartphone use in schools. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) requested the court to lay down comprehensive guidelines for the use of smartphones in schools, leading the court to address this broader policy issue.
The Court observed that while existing guidelines discouraged or banned smartphone use in schools, they had not yielded the desired results. The 2023 advisory by the DoE was noted to be too broad and insufficient in effectively regulating smartphone usage. The Court acknowledged the evolving role of smartphones in education and safety, emphasizing that an outright ban was neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, a nuanced approach balancing the advantages and disadvantages of smartphones was necessary.
The Court issued following guiding principles which would serve to balance the beneficial and deleterious effects of permitting the use of smartphones in the hands of students while attending school:
1. As a matter of policy, students should not be barred from carrying smartphones to school but the use of smartphones in school must be regulated and monitored;
2. Where it is possible to make arrangements for safekeeping of smartphones, students should be required to deposit their smartphones when they enter school and take them back when returning home;
3. Smartphones must not disrupt classroom teaching, discipline, or the overall educational atmosphere. To this end, the use of smartphones in class must be prohibited. Use of cameras and recording facility on smartphones should also be barred in the common areas of the school as well as in school vehicles;
4. Schools must educate students on responsible online behaviour, digital manners, and the ethical use of smartphones. Students must be counseled that high levels of screen-time and social media engagement can lead to anxiety, diminished attention spans and cyber-bullying;
5. The policy should permit use of smartphones for connectivity for purposes of safety and co-ordination but disallow the use of smartphones for entertainment/recreational use;
6. The policy on regulating and monitoring the use of smartphones in school should be made in consultation with parents, educators, and experts, to evolve a balanced approach that addresses the needs and concerns of all parties involved;
7. Schools should have the discretion to implement policies that fit their unique situations, whether that involves allowing limited use of smartphones in specified areas of the school or enforcing stricter bans, including bans during specific times and events;
8. The policy should establish transparent, fair, and enforceable consequences for violation of the rules for use of smartphones in school, ensuring consistent application without being excessively harsh. Possible consequences could include confiscation of smartphones for a certain time-period; or barring a student from carrying a smartphone for specified number of days, as a measure of disciplining an errant student; and
9. Given the fast-paced advancement of technology, the policy should be regularly reviewed and revised to tackle emerging challenges.
[YV v. Kendriya Vidyalaya, W.P.(C) 15191/2023, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ashu Bidhuri, Mr. Swapnam Prakash Singh, Mr. Hemant Baisla, Ms. Shabana Hussain and Mr. Satyansh Gupta, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. S. Rajappa, R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Advocates for R1 and R5. Mr. Anuj Tyagi and Ms. Akshita Agarwal, Advocates for DCPCR/R4.