“J&K’s new S.O. 251 rules swap private school NOCs for self-attestation and as such is a blow to regulatory accountability. With the Fee Fixation Committee leaderless, parents and students are gripped with the fear of many more vulnerabilities and exploitations.”
The Jammu and Kashmir Government’s decision to relax certain No Objection Certificate (NOC) and compliance requirements for private schools raises serious questions about regulatory accountability. While eliminating unnecessary paperwork is justified, reducing mandatory safeguards to mere formalities could give unscrupulous school managements’ greater freedom without ensuring corresponding responsibility. With the FFRC headless for nine months, fee violations and concerns over unsafe school buildings, the government must prioritise parents and students The amendments notified under S.O. 251 on October 5, 2026, reportedly remove specified provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Rules, 2010, and replace certain compliance requirements with self-attested certificates. The private schools’ association has welcomed the decision as a major reform. But the government must explain whether the changes will genuinely improve education or simply make it easier for institutions to operate with reduced scrutiny. An NOC is not an administrative formality. It is intended to establish whether an institution fulfils prescribed requirements. Self-certification cannot replace independent inspections, particularly when children’s safety is involved. A management’s declaration cannot establish that a building is structurally sound, fire safety arrangements are adequate or school buses meet safety standards. Over the year it has been observed that many private schools operate from rented buildings, with some premises reportedly declared unsafe for educational activities. These concerns demand urgent verification. The government must ensure that no institution operates from a building unfit to accommodate students. Simplifying procedures without effective inspections risks turning regulatory reform into an open licence for non-compliance. Questions have also been raised about schools operated by individuals involved in real estate and other commercial activities rather than educational trusts. Private ownership does not automatically imply wrongdoing, but education cannot be treated merely as a business opportunity. Transparency in ownership, infrastructure, finances and compliance must remain non-negotiable. The government’s approach becomes more questionable when viewed against the reported nine-month vacancy in the leadership of the Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee (FFRC). At a time when parents continue to raise concerns over school fees, the prolonged absence of a regular head raises a fundamental question: who is ensuring effective enforcement of fee regulations?
“Simplifying school administration in Jammu and Kashmir must eliminate red tape without diluting regulatory oversight, safety standards, or social accountability. Long-term approvals should not grant permanent exemption to private schools from inspections or fee regulation. The success of the October 5 amendments hinges on protecting students and improving educational quality, not just appeasing and pleasing school managements—the region requires simpler procedures, not a hugely compromised educational governance.”
The FFRC is an important safeguard against arbitrary financial demands. Its functioning cannot be treated as a secondary administrative concern while the government prioritises easing compliance for school managements. The authorities must fill the vacancy without further delay and ensure that pending complaints are addressed promptly. Allegations of private schools charging admission fees in violation of prescribed rules also require serious investigation. Similarly, the practice of beginning admission processes well before annual examinations can put unnecessary pressure on parents and students. The government must examine whether these practices violate existing regulations and take action wherever violations are established. Financial transparency must extend to teachers’ salaries and school transport charges. Where salary structures lack the required approval or effective regulatory oversight, teachers risk being subjected to arbitrary employment conditions. Parents, meanwhile, deserve clarity about the basis of bus fees and protection against unjustified charges. The government must specify the applicable rules and ensure their enforcement. The principle of ease of doing business cannot be applied to education without considering its social responsibilities. The government must ease unnecessary procedures, not the ability of institutions to evade scrutiny. Genuine schools should not suffer because of repetitive paperwork or departmental delays, but neither should regulatory relief come at the expense of children, parents and teachers. Demands for single-window clearances and time-bound disposal of applications merit consideration. However, longer NOC validity or permanent registration must not mean permanent exemption from inspections. Registration should remain subject to continued compliance with safety, infrastructure and academic requirements. The Government should publish clear guidelines explaining which requirements have been removed, which safeguards remain mandatory and how violations will be detected and punished. Periodic inspections, transparent fee regulation and accessible grievance mechanisms must accompany any relaxation. The real test of the October 5 amendments is not the approval they receive from school managements, but whether they improve educational standards while protecting students and parents. Jammu and Kashmir needs simpler procedures, not weaker regulation.
