Following years of demands for such legislation, a Bill for regulating coaching centres was tabled in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on Thursday (March 20). The creation of a high-pressure academic ecosystem in cities like Kota and Jaipur, with coaching centres and residential schools to aid students in preparing for competitive exams, had prompted calls for regulation. For more than a decade now, several cases of student suicides have been reported every year. However, the Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2025, has received some criticism for diluting certain provisions of earlier drafts and sidestepping some of the Union Education Ministry’s guidelines on the issue. What does the Rajasthan Bill say? The government said the Bill aims to “curb the commercialisation of coaching institutes and ensure that they operate within a framework prioritising the well-being and success of students”. It seeks to mandate minimum quality standards, the registration of coaching centres, and psychological counselling for students. The Centre’s January 2024 guidelines for the regulation of coaching centres proposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 for the first violation of provisions and Rs 1 lakh for a second violation, followed by cancellation of registration for subsequent violation(s). The tabled version sets the first fine at Rs 2 lakh and Rs 5 lakh for the second offence, followed by cancellation of the centre’s registration. This is one aspect where the Bill’s provisions are more stringent compared to the draft and guidelines. And what are the differences? In line with guidelines, an earlier draft specified that only students who are 16 years of age or have completed secondary school examinations can be enrolled in coaching centres. However, the tabled version has no mention of the age criteria. Coaching centres could stand to benefit in the absence of such a provision, especially those in Kota. Having become a hub for engineering and medical college aspirants, the city has witnessed a decline in student enrollments recently. The Centre’s guidelines, in addition to bad press over student suicides and the emergence of new hubs in other parts of the country, are seen as the likely factors. Here are some of the other key points of difference: 🔴 In some cases, students went missing from the centres and their families found out much later. An earlier version of the Bill mandated biometric attendance through face recognition technology. If a student was absent for more than two days without prior intimation, the centres were “to inform the parents”, it said. The Bill has no such provision for attendance. 🔴 A draft also stated that coaching centres “shall abide by the orders issued by the state government regarding national holidays, local holidays as declared by the District Collector and festivals”. While the tabled version states that centres should try to customise leaves to coincide with festivals, it omits mention of national and local holidays. 🔴 The guidelines had pushed for greater inclusivity and accessibility, stating that the coaching centres “shall not discriminate against any applicant/ student on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, descent etc. during the admission and teaching process”. 🔴 They also said the centres may make special provisions to encourage greater representation of students from vulnerable communities, including female students and differently abled students. The centre’s building and surrounding premises should comply with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Both these points were included in the draft, but have been omitted now. What happens next? Certain parents’ associations have flagged the need for specifying punishment for centres in case of student suicides and demanded measures to curb the arbitrary fees they charge. Criticising the Bill, parents’ organisation Sanyukta Abhibhavak Sangh alleged that the Bill has been drafted “in guidance of the coaching centres”. Its spokesperson Abhishek Jain Bittu said that the Bill should have a provision for a committee to determine the fees charged by coaching centres. The Bill is expected to come up for debate and passage in the ongoing Budget session. Leader of Opposition Tika Ram Jully from the Congress said that the earlier draft had mentioned the 16-year minimum age criteria “but now the government is again planning to burden the students”. “It seems as if the state government has connived with the coaching centres to again relax the age criteria,” he said, pointing to differences between the guidelines and the Bill. “It seems the government doesn’t want to bring a strong Bill. We will oppose this and give our suggestions and would hope that they are included,” he said.
