AMEER ALAM V. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ORS W.P.(MD)NO.29474 OF 2025:

DATE: 05/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Madras

BENCH: Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan

FACTS:

The present writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging proceedings dated 04.09.2025 issued by the third respondent, namely the Member Secretary, Model School, Tamil Nadu Education Department. By the impugned proceedings, the authorities sought to collect extensive and sensitive personal data from students studying in Classes IX to XII in Government Model Schools through the EMIS platform. The data categories included information relating to family status, parental imprisonment, refugee background, caste, gender non-conformity, health conditions, abuse history, and other stigmatic social markers.

The petitioner contended that such data collection intruded into the privacy of minor students and exposed them to discrimination and social stigma. Although the third respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming that the data was collected confidentially to extend “special attention” to vulnerable students and invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, no clear explanation was provided regarding the purpose, necessity, or safeguards governing the use of such sensitive data. During hearings, the respondent’s counsel failed to adequately justify either the need for such data collection or the manner in which it would protect students’ dignity and privacy.

ISSUES:

The principal issue before the Court was whether the collection of sensitive personal and socio-economic data from school-going children, in the manner prescribed by the impugned proceedings, violated the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, amounted to discrimination against students of Government Model Schools, and constituted an abuse of administrative power warranting judicial interference.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned proceedings dated 04.09.2025 insofar as Annexure-2, Serial Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were concerned. The Court held that the data collection exercise was unconstitutional, violative of students’ right to privacy, and amounted to stigmatization and ill-treatment of vulnerable children. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from collecting such sensitive information, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.

The Court held that the information sought to be collected pertained to highly sensitive aspects of a child’s personal life, including family circumstances, caste, gender identity, health status, and history of abuse. Such data, by its very nature, intruded into the intimate private sphere of minors and had the potential to expose them to discrimination, labelling, and social exclusion. Relying on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, encompassing autonomy, dignity, and the right to control personal information. The mere fact that the students were studying in Government institutions did not dilute their expectation of privacy.

The Court further found that the respondents failed to establish a lawful purpose, proportionality, or necessity for collecting such extensive data, which are essential constitutional requirements when State action encroaches upon privacy. The vague assertion of providing “special attention” without specifying concrete welfare measures or safeguards was held to be insufficient. The Court observed that categorising students based on stigmatic criteria and mandating teachers to document such data amounted to institutional discrimination and abuse of administrative authority. The invocation of parens patriae was rejected, as the State’s protective role cannot justify measures that demoralise children or violate their dignity. Accordingly, the impugned order was held to be unconstitutional and unsustainable in law.

ANALYSIS:

This decision reinforces the constitutional limits on State collection of personal data, particularly when it concerns minors and vulnerable populations. The Court’s approach is firmly grounded in the privacy jurisprudence developed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, applying its principles to the educational context. By scrutinising not merely the existence of a governmental objective but also the absence of necessity, proportionality, and clearly articulated safeguards, the Court underscored that benevolent intent cannot substitute for constitutional compliance. The ruling clarifies that students in Government-run institutions enjoy the same expectation of informational privacy as any other citizens, and that the State’s role as educator or guardian does not dilute the autonomy and dignity guaranteed under Article 21.

Equally significant is the Court’s recognition of the stigmatic harm inherent in categorising children based on socio-economic, familial, caste, or identity-related markers. The judgment moves beyond a narrow privacy analysis and addresses the broader implications of institutional discrimination and psychological impact on students. By rejecting the invocation of parens patriae, the Court delineated a clear boundary between legitimate child welfare measures and intrusive surveillance that risks marginalisation. The decision thus serves as an important precedent cautioning administrative authorities against data-driven governance models that lack transparency and safeguards, and affirms that child welfare policies must be designed in a manner that protects dignity, equality, and constitutional freedoms.