J&K Board Can Compel Affiliated Private Schools to Use Its Own Textbooks, Division Bench Rules

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upholds notifications directing all affiliated private schools to adopt Board-published textbooks for Classes VI to VIII, dismissing a trust’s challenge to the Board’s authority.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the J&K Private Schools United Front, a registered trust claiming to represent private schools across the Union Territory. The appeal challenged two notifications issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education in 2022 and 2023, which directed all affiliated private schools to exclusively adopt textbooks published by the Board for Classes VI to VIII. The Division Bench, affirming the Single Judge’s order of 8 September 2023, held that once a school voluntarily seeks affiliation with the Board, it is bound by the Board’s prescriptions on curriculum and textbooks. The judgment, pronounced on 6 June 2026, is marked reportable.

The Notifications and the Trust’s Grievance

The dispute traces to Notification No. F(PP-Publication)B/22 dated 26 August 2022, issued by the J&K Board of School Education. That notification directed all private schools across the Union Territory to adopt and teach only those textbooks published by the Board for Classes VI to VIII. A second notification dated 4 January 2023 reiterated the same requirement, specifying that Board-published textbooks would be implemented from the ensuing academic session.

Three follow-up communications added to the appellant’s grievance. On 27 March 2023, the Assistant Secretary (General KD) of the Board sought information on whether any schools were compelling students to purchase unapproved textbooks from private publishers. The next day, the Director of School Education, Kashmir, directed all Chief Education Officers to conduct detailed enquiries alongside Zonal Education Officers and submit Action Taken Reports, citing complaints from parents that certain private schools were forcing them to buy books from private publishers either in place of, or alongside, Board textbooks. Also on 28 March 2023, the Deputy Secretary of the Board’s Sub-Office in Kupwara directed all private schools in that district to furnish information on their adoption of Board curriculum and textbooks, and prohibited the prescription of any unapproved curriculum or textbooks from private publishers.

The trust, through its Chairman Mushtaq Ahmad Wani, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702/2023 before the High Court, contending that the notifications and circulars were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The core argument was that while the Board possessed the power to prescribe syllabi and textbooks, it had no authority to compel private schools to exclusively purchase and use textbooks that the Board itself had published. The trust also argued that the officials who issued the impugned notifications lacked the requisite legal authority.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 8 September 2023, holding that the Board was vested with the power to prescribe textbooks under Section 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002, and that the notifications were validly issued in accordance with the Board’s Affiliation Committee resolutions. The trust then preferred LPA 241/2023 before the Division Bench.

The Statutory Framework the Bench Examined

The Division Bench examined two statutes. The first is the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education Act, 1975, enacted to reform and reorganise school education and to regulate, control, and develop education in J&K. Section 10 of that Act delineates the Board’s powers and functions, and expressly includes the power “to prescribe the courses of instructions, prepare curricula and detailed syllabi and also prescribe text books” for pre-primary, elementary, secondary, and higher secondary school examinations.

The second statute is the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002. Section 29 of that Act empowers the Government to make rules on a range of matters, including the standards of education and courses of study, the grant of permission to set up private schools, the recognition of private schools, and the inspection of schools. The bench read Section 29 as containing the power to regulate the content of education in all schools affiliated with the Board.

The bench also noted the resolution of the Board’s Affiliation Committee, which mandates that all affiliated schools must adhere to the textbooks and curricula approved by the Board. The trust had not established that this resolution suffered from any lack of jurisdiction or procedural infirmity.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench rejected the trust’s central contention that the Board’s power to prescribe textbooks does not extend to compelling schools to use books that the Board itself publishes. The bench held that the power to prescribe textbooks “necessarily includes the authority to determine which books are to be used in affiliated schools.” The fact that the Board publishes the textbooks it prescribes does not, by itself, make the action arbitrary or ultra vires, provided the prescription is supported by statute and guided by educational policy considerations.

The bench drew a clear line on the voluntary nature of affiliation. Once a private school seeks and obtains affiliation from the Board, it accepts the terms and conditions of that affiliation, including compliance with the Board’s prescribed curricula, syllabi, and textbooks. The trust’s argument that schools, parents, and students were being deprived of the choice to adopt better-quality books from private publishers did not persuade the bench, which found that the prescription fell squarely within the Board’s statutory competence under Sections 10 and 29 of the respective Acts.

On the constitutional challenge, the bench held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions and the right to carry on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public. Regulation of education, including the prescription of curricula and textbooks, constitutes a valid and reasonable restriction aimed at maintaining academic standards and ensuring uniformity in educational content across the Union Territory.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 179, where the Court recognised the State’s power to devise policies to promote the general welfare and the larger public interest when allowing private sector participation in education. It also cited P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537, for the proposition that the right to establish and run educational institutions is an aspect of the right to practise any profession, occupation, or trade, and that the State can regulate such institutions in the interest of the general public.

On the Article 14 challenge, the bench referred to Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437, which holds that a change in policy must be made fairly and must not appear arbitrary or motivated by ulterior criteria. The bench found that the impugned notifications and circulars were general directions issued uniformly to all affiliated institutions across the Union Territory, clearly intended to maintain educational uniformity, and therefore could not be characterised as arbitrary or violative of Article 14.

The bench also drew on State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, AIR 1954 SC 561, where the Supreme Court observed that the State’s power to make reasonable regulations for all schools cannot be legally questioned insofar as its exercise is not inconsistent with or contrary to fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens.

The bench observed that matters of educational policy lie primarily within the domain of expert and regulatory bodies, and that judicial interference is warranted only where the policy is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to statute. No such infirmity was found in the present case.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed LPA 241/2023 and affirmed the judgment and order dated 8 September 2023 passed by the Single Judge in WP(C) No. 702/2023. The court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s view. The notifications, circulars, and communications issued by the J&K Board of School Education and its officers directing affiliated private schools to adopt Board-published textbooks for Classes VI to VIII were upheld as valid exercises of statutory power.