REGULATORY FAILURE AND STUDENT SAFETY IN INDIA’S PRIVATE COACHING INDUSTRY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

The private coaching sector in India, generates more than ₹58,000 crores each year in revenue, which has an enrollment of more than 71 million students. Currently, the regulatory structures in place are insufficient and incapable of responding adequately. Three avoidable tragedies – the Surat Fire (2019), the Delhi Basement Flood (2024), and the Lucknow Fire (2026) – claimed the lives of over fifty youth. The illegal occupancy of coaching centers, the absence of fire safety certificates and structural integrity, coupled with the poor enforcement of extant laws, created the conditions for these tragedies. This paper will present an overview of the regulatory framework that currently governs coaching centres by describing the constitutional, statutory and judicial aspects under which coaching centres are regulated.

Key Words: Coaching Centre Laws, Fire Safety Coaching Institutes, Student Safety Law, Article 21, Surat Fire Case, Lucknow Coaching Fire, Delhi Coaching Centre Flood

Introduction

The Rise of Coaching Industries in India:

In the last 30 years, India’s private coaching industry has evolved from small tutoring facilities into a large, mature alternative education system. With an estimated 71 million students enrolled in coaching programmes, the industry is now valued at more than ₹580 billion and is projected to be worth ₹1.3 trillion by 2028.[i]

Significant competition for available seats is primarily responsible for this tremendous growth — less than 0.2% of applicants who take the UPSC Civil Services exam will be successful, and only about 1% of applicants to the IIT-JEE will be successful, so millions of families have come to see organized coaching as a necessity. The commercial development of the private coaching sector has by far outstripped the pace of regulatory oversight, leading to enormous coaching facilities being established under little or no regulatory scrutiny.

Students’ Safety – An Emerging Legal Concern

Ensuring the safety of students in coaching facilities is now a key legal issue. A 2023 industry assessment noted that many coaching centres lack valid Fire Safety Certificates and even the most basic Emergency Exits.

The 2019 Surat Fires, the 2024 Delhi Basement Flood, and the 2026 Lucknow Fires collectively killed over 50 young students and, on each occasion, demonstrated the same series of failures: illegal occupancy, no fire No Objection Certificates, inadequate exit routes and inadequate response by the enforcement agencies. The same violations repeated in various cities, and in different years, points to the systemic inadequacy of governance and not isolated cases of dereliction.

Research Question

This article seeks to answer three questions:

1. What is the legal framework to protect the physical safety of students at private coaching institutes in India?
2. Why do recurring tragedies occur despite existing regulations?
3. What sort of reforms are needed?

This article uses a doctrinal legal method and examines pertinent mandates, statutes, subordinate legislation, case law, and official government policy documents. A comparison of laws will be made with respect to Singapore, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Only offline coaching institutes will be included in this analysis.

The Existing Regulatory Framework

The Constitutional Foundation:

The Supreme Court has widely and generously interpreted Article 21 to mean that, in addition to the right to life, there is a right to live one’s life with a reasonable degree of safety. The requirement that the state provide protection for life under Article 21 is a positive and a negative obligation of the state. When large groups of students are assembled in privately-owned buildings, the state has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that these buildings provide at least the minimum safety standards. It is therefore subject to constitutional challenges to allow coaching centres to operate without enforcing applicable fire safety laws or building codes. Placing education on the Concurrent List (Entry20, List III) has created a situation in which both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can make laws regarding education, resulting in the fragmented and inconsistent regulatory framework for coaching in India.

On January 18, 2024, The Ministry of Education released the first comprehensive policy framework regarding private tutoring services across India. The Guidelines established an example of prior registration with the relevant Authorities for Private Tutoring Services Agency, branch-by-branch registration as well as minimum standards for physical space outlined as 1 square meter per student within each class/batch. Specifically referencing Fire Codes, Building Codes, and the acquisition of the appropriate safety certification, first aid kits, and medical assistance for any/all employees were required within these Guidelines.[ii]

The Guidelines are not legally binding; however, they will be distributed to each Chief Secretary of the provinces, for review, and upon the individual province’s review could be enforced, with the exception of section 111 as it is a separate line of prevention legislation. Therefore, the enforcement of these Regulations relies on the individual province enacting their own legislation to comply with the Guidelines. This presents an opportunity for delays due to political reasons and lack of consistency across the country.

Besides, various states throughout the country have implemented laws specific to sports coaches including: 2001 – Goa, 2002 – Uttar Pradesh, 2010 – Bihar, 2017 – Manipur, 2024 – Haryana and Bill (2025) – Rajasthan. The contents and focus of these acts differ widely ranging from regulation of coaching fees and the qualifications required for coaches to establishing district-based registration systems for coaches with no governing body to enforce independent safety inspections of coaches.[iii]

General Statutory Framework

General legislation covers the regulation of a ‘coaching campus’ as no specific fire safety law governing coaching exists. Part 4 of the National Building Code, 2016 contains detailed provisions regarding egress, fire alarm systems, structural fire-resistance, and emergency lighting for existing buildings, all of which apply to coaching camps. By virtue of municipal law, Urban Local Bodies are granted power to regulate the occupancy of buildings and issue occupancy certificates. The Disaster Management Act of 2005 places an obligation on state authorities for disaster risk mitigation. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 provides a forum for students to claim compensation for unsafe services provided by coaching institutions. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023 provides the basis for the prosecution of culpable homicide and/or criminal negligence in the event of death occurring as a result of violations of duty of care arising out of a safety violation.

Judicial Recognition

In Avinash Mehrotra vs Union of India, following the Kumbakonam school fire in 2004 in which there were 94 deaths, the Supreme Court directed State Governments to require strict compliance with fire safety laws in educational institutions.[iv] In Sanjay Singhal vs State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors[v] upheld the Delhi High Court judgement and directed, “there can be no compromise on the issue of safety of students. No any coaching can operate without the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department in Delhi NCR.” Further in Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v Delhi Administration & Ors[vi], the hon’ble apex court ruled that safe and comfortable environment in an educational institution also extends to “proper basic infrastructure”. This general principle, which requires the State to provide a minimum standard of safety wherever young persons participate in an educational activity, applies equally to private coaching centres.

Recurring Tragedies

The Surat Coaching Centre Fire (2019):

On 24 May 2019, there was a fire at Takshashila Arcade in Surat, India, caused by a short circuit. The fire spread to the top of the building where there was a coaching center. Twenty-two students died when they either were in the fire (16) or jumped from the rooftop (3).

Investigations discovered the system failed to perform awarding proper approval for the illegal conversion from residential to commercial by the builder in 2007 and constructing the third floor/terrace dome without obtaining proper approval. Only one exit was provided, a wooden staircase that burned in the fire.

There was no fire safety equipment installed, nor did the coach center engage a fire safety service to obtain a fire no objection certificate. It took approximately 45 minutes for the fire department to respond to the fire. Both the fire officer assigned to the building and their supervisor were suspended from duty for failing to conduct inspections. The coach center owner and both builders were arrested.

Delhi UPSC Coaching Centre Tragedy (2024):

On July 27, 2024, three aspirants taking exams for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), which is considered one of the toughest exams in the world, drowned in the dimly lit basement library at Rau’s IAS Study Circle, located in Old Rajinder Nagar Delhi, after drainage pipes burst due to excessive rainfall. The basement was not legally permitted to be used for educational purposes. [vii]

The incident highlighted how prevalent it was for people to illegally convert basements in the area, which is a large educational centre for aspiring IAS students. Previous complaints regarding drainage maintenance issues had been ignored by authorities. Within days of the floods from draining the basement, it flooded again; highlighting how all of the university administrations’ responses to the incident were reactive in nature rather than preventative. This led to many students protests where students demanded enforcements of legally binding safety requirements for buildings and institutional accountability.

The Lucknow Coaching Centre Fire (2026):

On June 22, 2026, a fire at a three-storey commercial structure resulted in at least fifteen young adults being killed, most being young males between the ages of twenty (20) and twenty-four (24) who were students and/or trainees, located within the Aliganj area of Lucknow. The structure included many businesses; however, most notably, contained a computer coaching facility (In India, coaching facilities are very common as many students prepare for the IAS, and approximately 75% of students take a coaching course).[viii]

Preliminary investigations performed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) found that the building had been permitted to be used as offices; however, it operated as a coaching facility, contrary to the requirements set forth by the LDA’s approval. It was also found that all exits from the building were inadequate, the building did not have the appropriate permits, and there had not been appropriate measurements taken to ensure fire safety prior to the building being used in violation of building regulations. The owner of the building was remanded into custody. Following the tragic event, more than 50 coaching centres were sealed by the LDA in the City of Lucknow for operating in violation of existing ordinances.[ix]

Based upon a review of related materials over seven years, across two states, and through three separate proximate causes, it can be seen that there is a strong convergence of issues: applications of premises were made for uses different than those approved; safety certifications exist but either were not verified or not available; building structure deficiencies (e.g., illegal staircases, unapproved basement apartments, not enough exits) directly contributed to deaths; and/or violations associated with all applications were either not addressed or did not receive an enforcement action until after the death occurred. The frequent repetition of similar failures across multiple jurisdictions leads to the conclusion that the underlying issue is one of structural governance deficiency and not merely an issue of individual carelessness or negligence.

Critical Evaluation of Existing Legal Framework

Fragmented Regulatory Architecture:

The regulatory authority over the coaching institute has been distributed across multiple agencies (i.e., the Education Department, Municipal Corporation, Development Authority, Fire Service, Disaster Management), and each has limited jurisdiction; thus, there is no single body with comprehensive authority in this space. A coaching centre may be required to obtain a Fire NOC from one agency, obtain a building use clearance from another agency, and obtain their registration certificate from a third agency with no coordination regarding the provision of any of these documents as a condition precedent to a centre commencing operation. The result is that the fragmentation of these agencies creates gaps in the enforcement of the regulations governing coaching institutes, and they will likely only become visible as a result of a tragic incident.

Limitations of Non-binding Guidelines:

While the Guidelines created by the Ministry of Education (MoE) in 2024 are substantively sound, they are limited by the fact that they are non-binding guidelines. Until a State passes legislation that is consistent with the Guidelines, they are of a voluntary nature and the coaching centre will not be subject to any national penalties for not complying with the Guidelines. Further, States with significant coaching industry interests are likely to resist imposing onerous safety obligations which would increase their compliance costs. Therefore, the potential that the Guidelines have to transform the coaching institute industry is constrained by their non-statutory nature.

Lack of Uniform National Standards:

Coaching institutes in India need consistent basic safety regulations with fire prevention systems. While some States have some form of fire safety legislation. Also, enforcement mechanisms at different States vary, creating regulatory arbitrage in a sector with large nationals operating in multiple States. Most coaching-specific laws that require registration are only procedural. Very few States require that a certified third-party be used to evaluate that all required safety practices are in place during the registration process. Even when there is a provision for renewal of registration, it may not be done on a regular basis, nor has there been any substantive verification that all safety requirements have been met. Rarely are independent inspections done by consistently trained inspectors.

Enforcement Deficit and Administrative Inaction:

The major failure in the enforcement of legislative requirements is at the local level. Although there are laws regarding the issuance of fire No Objection Certificates, occupancy permits and building construction compliance, there is very little system-wide proactive enforcement of those laws. Local municipalities have inadequate staff to provide inspections; fire service are poorly equipped, and there are no systems in place to determine when inspections are to be carried out. The political economy of coaching centres, which create a large volume of economic activity, impedes the system’s ability to enforce safety regulations consistently. Illustrations of the reactive enforcement paradigm include the simultaneous closure of coaching centres in Surat, Delhi, and Lucknow after the deaths of students in 2016. If systematic proactive enforcement was practiced (i.e. if regular inspections had taken place prior to the tragedies), many of the tragic 2016 events may have been avoided.

The existing framework inadequately addresses both civil and penal accountability for either coaching operators or public officials failing to enforce safety policies. There have been arrests in all three tragic events; however, the prosecution is progressing very slowly. Individual complainants must seek remedies for any harm they have suffered via the Consumer Protection Act. The onus of responsibility to obtain all forms of redress rests with the aggrieved family; regulators cannot enforce rules to protect them. Importantly, the framework is designed for reactive purposes, as opposed to preventative ones. A wholly preventative framework would require mandatory pre-operation verifications, independent independent periodic reviews, publicly available compliance status; and severe penalties to both operators and inspectors in the event of a violation producing a preventable injury.

Comparative Analysis

Singapore

The Private Education Act of 2009 establishes a two-tier system of regulatory oversight for Private Educational Institutions (PEIs) located in Singapore. The Enhanced Registration Framework (ERF) establishes baseline operational standards for PEIs administered by SkillsFuture Singapore, while the EduTrust Certification Scheme establishes a system for voluntarily certifying PEIs that meet higher quality standard requirements. All PEIs that have registered with SkillsFuture Singapore will have their registration publicly available, along with their compliance status, allowing potential students to cross-reference the credentials of the PEIs prior to their enrolment.[x]

Australia

Under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, private education providers must register with the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and demonstrate compliance with the Safety and Quality Standards for Private Education Providers, including the quality and safety of premises and infrastructure. Registration requires periodic audit and renewal of compliance, and ASQA may conduct unannounced site visits for compliance verification. Noncompliance could lead to ASQA cancelling the registration of the PEI. The regulatory model of ASQA focusses on maintaining ongoing compliance with applicable standards, as opposed to simply approving compliance at one point in time.

United Kingdom

Independent schools and private further education providers in England are subject to mandatory inspection by Ofsted as per the Education and Skills Act of 2008. The inspection process occurs on a scheduled basis, and inspections assess the welfare, health and safety, leadership and management, and educational quality of the inspected institutions and/or providers. Schools or institutions that receive a non-met judgment in the area of safety are subject to graduated enforcement, including emergency inspections and, if warranted, direction of closure from the Department for Education.[xi]

Recommendations for India’s Regulatory Framework

i) Harmonising Standards with a Central Framework Enforced by Law

The Union Government must leverage its legislative powers under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List to enact a binding Central Model Framework specifically dedicated to the regulation of private institute. To permanently resolve such ignorance India should establish National Coaching Regulatory Authority (NCRA) through the Act of Parliament, mirroring Australia’s ASQA or Singapore’s SkillsFuture framework. The NCRA will have a statutory power over local municipal and fire authorities regarding educational parlance. It will act as a single-window clearing mechanism.

1. ii) To avoid de-congestion, mandate coaching enclaves

Like Special Economic Zones(SEZs) or IT parks, states must develop planned coaching enclaves on city outskirts. These area must have integrated drainage infrastructure, dedicated fire stations. Also the Urban Local Bodies must amend master plan to prohibit large scale coaching centers from operating in residential or mixed-up commercial zones.

iii) Mandatory Safety Indemnity Bond

No coaching institute should be granted an operational license without purchasing a student safety indemnity bond. Because now the aggrieved party is solely depended on Consumer Protection Act, there should be a shift of economic accountability to the operators.

iv) AI driven Crowdsourced Auditing

The Central Government should mandate the creation of a national mobile application integrated with geo-fencing technology. It will utilize the device’s GPS to automatically detect the exact position of students inside the coaching center. In case of any hazards the immediate signal would triggered and it instantly relays telemetry data and exact structural coordinates to nearest localized fire station, disaster management, and PCR vans, which will bypass the estimated loss of lives.

While there are current regulations regarding fire hazards, building code violations and occupancy permits, there continue to be fatal incidents, due to lack of reliable enforcement of these same regulations. To ensure student safety as an imperative of education governance, India must implement standards of safety; a single authority to act as a coordinator for regulatory agencies; regular independent review of contract compliance as well as penalties for noncompliance with these standards; and publicly available records to show compliance with regulatory standards.

[i] National Sample Survey (2016); The Print, ‘India’s Tuition Republic is Bigger than Ever’, April 2023. Market projections: Economic and Political Weekly, ‘Regulating the Coaching Industry in India’, Vol. LIX, No. 23 (June 2024), citing Yadav (2022).

[ii] Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre (January 2024); Eduvisors Monograph on Coaching Centre Guidelines (2024), p. 3 (confirming non-statutory character).

[iii] PRS Legislative Research, State Legislative Brief: The Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2025 (listing State-wise enactments from Goa 2001 to Haryana 2024).

[iv] Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.483 of 2004, (2009) 6 SCC 398

[v] Sanjay Singhal vs State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors, W.P.(C) 8534/2023

[vi] Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v Delhi Administration & Ors [2012] INSC 584

[vii] Business Today, ‘Delhi rains: 3 UPSC aspirants die after coaching centre’s basement gets flooded in Rajinder Nagar, probe ordered’, 28 July 2024.

[viii] IANS / The News Minute, ‘Lucknow fire tragedy: 18 dead after blaze rips through coaching centre’, 23 June 2026.

[ix] ANI, ‘Lucknow Fire Tragedy: LDA to seal coaching centre over safety, building violations’, 24 June 2026; Oneindia News, ‘Lucknow Coaching Centres Sealed After Deadly Aliganj Fire’, 28–29 June 2026.

[x] Committee for Private Education, SkillsFuture Singapore, EduTrust Guidance Document Version 4 (2023); Private Education Act 2009 (Singapore).

[xi] Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (November 2025); Education and Skills Act 2008 (UK); Independent Schools Inspectorate, Wikipedia entry (updated April 2026).