JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. "The children are neither weight lifters nor school bags are loaded containers". 1. Joy, happiness, enthusiasm, trolling, rolling, kicking, running, fighting, playing with other children are natural qualities of the children. Children are moulded as memory chips to store information’s, due to faulty pattern of educational system and to download them in the examinations to prove their memory capacity which is the yardstick to assess and measure the alleged merits of the children. Bundle of joy and enthusiasm, emotions, curiosity make the innocence of a child. The said innocence of the child is being robbed of by "ambitious" parents, "taskmaster" teachers and "result oriented" school managements by prescribing irrelevant books in the very young age itself. Instead of learning with joy, the children end up rot memorizing, with fear and stress, which in no way could help the children or the parents. Instead of making creative minds, the system only does destruction of younger minds. 2. Mr. M. Purushothaman, petitioner herein is a practising advocate before this Court, who filed the writ petition, challenging the circular issued by the CBSE, dated 29.07.2017 and further direct the respondents viz., Department of School Education and Literacy Human Resource Development Ministry, Government of India; National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to require the CBSE schools to buy books published by NCERT alone and not the books published by private publishers. He contended in the writ petition that, (i) Excess subjects, not prescribed by NCERT, are prescribed by CBSE schools to children of Classes I to V; (ii) Homeworks, which have been prohibited to be given to students of Classes I and II, is given and (iii) Prescription of excess subjects make the school bags heavier. This Court after hearing the arguments directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, however kept the writ petition pending for issuing further directions in the matter. 3. While so, the present W.M.P. has been taken out by the petitioner/party-in-person to prohibit the CBSE schools from giving homeworks to children of classes I and II and protect the childhood of the tender kids from being excessively trained by giving homeworks by schools. 3. While so, the present W.M.P. has been taken out by the petitioner/party-in-person to prohibit the CBSE schools from giving homeworks to children of classes I and II and protect the childhood of the tender kids from being excessively trained by giving homeworks by schools. The petitioner would contend that NCERT prescribed only a few subjects to the children, according to the classes, whereas the CBSE schools are prescribing and teaching children non-prescribed subjects and making the school bags heavy. There cannot be any homework for children studying in classes I and II, as per NCERT guidelines, whereas CBSE schools are compulsorily giving homeworks. Therefore, he seeks direction to prohibit the CBSE schools from prescribing any homework for the class I and II students. 4. Mr. G. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that CBSE has issued circulars to buy only NCERT books. NCERT is the academic authority to lay down curriculum and evaluation procedures for elementary education for classes I to VIII and schools have been advised strictly to follow the curriculum and the books prescribed by NCERT. 5. Mr. Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that the National Curriculum Framework 2005 (NCF - 2005), brought out by NCERT is the latest curriculum documents, which guides the school education in the country. As per the NCF 2005, there is no homework upto class II and two hours a week from class III. The curriculum developed by NCERT is to reduce the syllabus level and to provide opportunity for children to learn through experimental learning rather than rot memorizing. NCF - 2005, prescribes only two subjects viz., language and Mathematics for classes I and II and three subjects viz., language, EVS and Mathematics for classes III to V. The CBSE has to follow the curriculum/syllabus prescribed by NCERT. 6. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, the association of management of private schools (CBSE), Chennai would submit that it is not the intention of the schools to load the children with many books and it is the wish of the parents that the children should be made more knowledgeable and informative to face the competitive arena. Therefore, neither the schools nor the CBSE could be found fault with for having prescribed more subjects. Therefore, neither the schools nor the CBSE could be found fault with for having prescribed more subjects. The learned senior counsel would submit that guidelines of the NCERT are only recommendatory in nature and not mandatory and prescription of the curriculum is solely at the discretion of the schools. Therefore, in the interest of the children, they are being taught more subjects and the parents have not objected to it. 7. Heard the parties and perused the records. Though W.M.P. has been filed by the petitioner, this Court issues continuous mandamus in the writ petition itself. 8. NCERT has been formed to assist and advice the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. It is an autonomous body set up in the year 1961 by the Government of India to advise the Government on policies and programmes for qualitative improvement in school education. It is also an implementation agency for bilateral cultural exchange programmes with other countries in the field of school education. TO FOLLOW NCERT BOOKS OR NOT 9. It is clear from clauses V and VI of the memorandum of association of NCERT that it is funded by Central Government and it could appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of the councils and hold inquiries in the affairs. Further, the Government of India has got powers to issue direction to the Council on important matters of policy and programmes. NCERT is the authority to decide and prescribe the syllabus and books for the CBSE schools/students. As already observed in paragraph 7, NCERT has been formed to assist and advice the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare as well as the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The preamble of syllabus published by NCERT for elementary level reads as follows: "The National Curriculum Framework - 2005 reiterates the values enshrined in our Constitution, reduction of curricular burden on children, ensuring quality education for all and systematic changes as markers of curricula reform. It recognises the primacy of children's experiences, their voices and their active involvement in the process of learning. Learning experiences at school should pave the way for construction of knowledge and fostering creativity and become a source of joy, not stress. Curricular transactions seek hands-on experience and project based approaches. Concerns and issues pertaining to environment, peace oriented values, gender, SC & ST and minorities must inform various subjects and school experiences. Learning experiences at school should pave the way for construction of knowledge and fostering creativity and become a source of joy, not stress. Curricular transactions seek hands-on experience and project based approaches. Concerns and issues pertaining to environment, peace oriented values, gender, SC & ST and minorities must inform various subjects and school experiences. Examination system seeks a shift from content based testing to problem solving and competency based assessment. These are what the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) says, and the document was approved by Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) on 7 September 2005. The Syllabus Committee set up for the various stages of school education involving scholars, subject experts, teachers and the NCERT faculty held several meetings and deliberated on the ideas reflected in the NCF and formulated the syllabi. A Monitoring Committee appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, as per the recommendations of CABE, approved the new syllabi in its meeting held on 4 October 2005." From the above, it is clear that National Curriculum Framework (NCF) was approved by Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). Based on the ideas reflected in NCF, the syllabus committee formulated the syllabus and it was approved by Monitoring Committee appointed by Ministry of Human Resource Development, as per recommendations of CABE. 10. This Court takes note of the contentions of R1 & R2 in paragraph No. 13 of the counter that National Curriculum Framework (NCF)-2005 brought out by NCERT is the latest curriculum document which guides the school education in the country and implementation of the document has been recommended by Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Moreover, NCF - 2005 brought out by NCERT is a curriculum policy document in the area of school education with a purpose to provide quality education. NCF is a means of evolving a national system of education capable of responding to India's geographical and cultural milieus while ensuring a common core of values along with academic components. NCF has been developed as per the mandate of National Policy on Education, 1986 which sets the guidelines and direction for syllabi and textbooks at all school stages. The common core area includes history of India's Freedom Movement, the Constitutional obligations and other contents essential to nurture national identity. By circular dated 09.08.2017, CBSE informed the schools to purchase NCERT books, states CBSE's communication dated 30.11.2017 written to the petitioner. The common core area includes history of India's Freedom Movement, the Constitutional obligations and other contents essential to nurture national identity. By circular dated 09.08.2017, CBSE informed the schools to purchase NCERT books, states CBSE's communication dated 30.11.2017 written to the petitioner. It has been stated therein that action would be taken on schools which are using unnecessary books other than NCERT books. Paragraph No. 6 of counter affidavit of respondents 3 and 4 reads as follows: "6. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the CBSE Board has taken all steps to ensure that the CBSE syllabus/NCERT Books prescribed are purchased and followed by the Private Management schools and also they were informed any violation of the directions issued in various circulars by the CBSE will not be tolerated, and necessary action will be initiated against the erring management." 11. Paragraph No. 15 of the counter affidavit filed by NCERT, the 2nd respondent herein, reads as follows: "15. I submit that regarding the averments made in para No. 13, as a follow up of NCF-2005, the NCERT has developed its all textbooks constituting Textbook author teams with chief advisors and advisors drawing from subject experts and scholar groups. The teams also had teachers and educationist. The textbooks developed by the NCERT as a follow-up of the NCF-2005 were approved by the National Monitoring Committee set up by the MHRD." From the above, it is clear that academicians, educationalists, experts in various subjects and scholars, research, discuss and develop the NCERT books. Therefore, the NCERT books have been developed by experts. When the experts in the field decide about the curriculum, the schools or CBSE cannot prescribe more subjects contrary to NCERT's decision and the subjects prescribed by it and the same has to be followed. Even the Courts cannot interfere or substitute its opinion for that of experts and it is well-settled law as decided in the following cases: (i) The University of Mysore and another V. C.D. Govinda Gowda and another AIR 1965 SC 491 ) (Constitution Bench) (ii) Dr. Even the Courts cannot interfere or substitute its opinion for that of experts and it is well-settled law as decided in the following cases: (i) The University of Mysore and another V. C.D. Govinda Gowda and another AIR 1965 SC 491 ) (Constitution Bench) (ii) Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Others V. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Others 1980 (3) SCC 418 ) (iii) Chairman, J & K State Board of Education V. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others 2000 (3) SCC 59 ) (iv) Dental Council of India V. K.K.B. Charitable Trust and another 2001 (5) SCC 486 ) (v) Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) V. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another (2008) 9 SCC 284 ) In Basavaiah V. H.L. Ramesh and Others, the Honourable Supreme Court, by judgment dated 29.07.2010 has held thus: "28. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore, in the case of The University of Mysore and Anr. V.C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491 , in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. 29. We have been called upon to adjudicate the similar matter of the same University almost after half a century. In a judicial system governed by precedents, the judgments delivered by the Constitution Bench and other Benches must be respected and relied on with meticulous care and sincerity. The ratio of the Constitution Bench has not been properly appreciated by the learned judges in the impugned judgment. 30. In Dr. M.C. Gupta & Others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others (1979) 2 SCC 339 , somewhat similar controversy arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as well as respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post. Appellant no. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others (1979) 2 SCC 339 , somewhat similar controversy arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as well as respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post. Appellant no. 1 had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6 months as a Lecturer in Cardiology in the department of medicine and about 3 years and 2 months as Reader in Medicine in S.N. Medical College, Agra. Since there was no separate Department of Cardiology in that College, Cardiology formed part of general medicine and as such he was required to teach general medicine to undergraduate students and to some post-graduate students in addition to Cardiology. Similarly, appellant no. 2 had one year's experience as post-doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo, one year's teaching experience as Lecturer while posted as a Pool Officer and 15 months' teaching experience as post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur and about 4 years' and 6 months' teaching experience as Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo. The cardiology is a part of medicine and the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in Cardiology, was teaching experience in a subject which substantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same. The Commission was amply justified in reaching to the conclusion that he had the requisite teaching experience. The High Court was, therefore, in error in quashing his selection of the appellant in this case. 31. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions can be taken into consideration if it is from the recognized and institution of repute. It cannot be said that the State University of New York at Buffalo, where appellant no. 2 served as an Assistant Professor would not be an institution of repute. The experts aiding and advising the Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience was acquired by him and this one is a reputed University. 32. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the same. 32. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the experts committee. This Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court observed as under: "7. ....When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be... "33. In Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418 , the court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians: "17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. ... ... ..." 34. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4 SCC 27 , the court observed thus: "29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. .. ... ..." 35. .. ... ..." 35. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others (1990) 2 SCC 746 , the court relied on the judgment in University of Mysore (supra) and observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not interfere. The court further observed that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted. 36. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220 , the court placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore (supra) and reiterated the same legal position and observed as under: "8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. ... ... ..." 37. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305 , the court in somewhat similar matter observed thus: "... ... ...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." 38. The Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." 38. The Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169 , the court observed thus: "9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection...." 39. In Chairman J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others (2000) 3 SCC 59 , the court while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in the field of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts. 40. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Another (2001) 5 SCC 486 , the court reminded the High Courts that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely limited. 41. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427 , the court again reiterated the legal principle that the court should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the field. 42. In B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306 , the court again reiterated legal principles and observed regarding importance of the recommendations made by the expert committees. 43. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another (2008) 9 SCC 284 , the court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. 44. 43. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another (2008) 9 SCC 284 , the court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. 44. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726 , again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. 45. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." 12. In view of the above reasons, the contention made by the 5th respondent/Association that the NCERT guidelines/circulars are all only recommendatory in nature and not compulsory has to be rejected. When Government of India and NCERT decide about the curriculum, CBSE and the schools affiliated to CBSE are bound to follow the very same syllabus and books prescribed by NCERT. Otherwise the whole exercise made by the various stakeholders including educationalists, academicians, experts etc would become futile. If schools are at liberty to choose books, it would only create chaos and confusion and there would not be uniformity in education throughout the country. Hence, there shall a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to prescribe and use NCERT books alone to CBSE Students. NO HOMEWORK FOR THE YOUNGER KIDS 13. The next grievance of the petitioner is that the CBSE schools are prescribing homeworks to the children of Classes 1 and 2 and the same is prohibited by NCERT. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter stating that NCERT brought out NCF 2005 which is the latest curriculum document guiding school education in the country. The next grievance of the petitioner is that the CBSE schools are prescribing homeworks to the children of Classes 1 and 2 and the same is prohibited by NCERT. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter stating that NCERT brought out NCF 2005 which is the latest curriculum document guiding school education in the country. In paragraph 13, it has been specifically stated on the issue of homework that the concept of time and task are essential reckoners for taking stock of total time the children spent actively on learning and that it would include time spent on listening, reading, writing, doing activities and discussions etc., in multi grade classes, planning and designing, learning activities for children which would ensure that the children's time and task is minimized. 14. With regard to the homework, it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that there is no homework upto Class 2 and two hours a week from Class 3. Therefore, no school affiliated to CBSE can prescribe or give homework to Class 1 and Class 2 students. 15. No homework is given in Finland. Finnish students rarely do homework until their teens. On average, they do only about 3 hours of homework a week. Inspite of that, in the year 2012, the Finnish students scored 6th highest in the world in reading and 12th highest place in Mathematics on OECD international test known as PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment]. Further, the Finland high school graduation rate is 93% compared to 78% in Canada and 75% in USA. However, in India even the Kinder Garden students and Grade I and II students are pushed to do homework inspite of the fact that the students still remain as "Young Children". 16. Haris Cooper, a well known homework researcher, who is the Professor of Education and Psychology at Duke University states that no more than two hours of homework a night should be assigned to the students in high school. Cooper also conducted a meta analysis study in the year 2006 on homework and found that homework had some what of benefit for older children but did not have significant impact on the Grades/test scores of elementary school children [K.G. to V Grade]. 17. Dr. Cathy Vatterott, an education Professor at the University of Missouri - St. Cooper also conducted a meta analysis study in the year 2006 on homework and found that homework had some what of benefit for older children but did not have significant impact on the Grades/test scores of elementary school children [K.G. to V Grade]. 17. Dr. Cathy Vatterott, an education Professor at the University of Missouri - St. Louis and author of "Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs" has spent much of her career researching the research about homework. Her findings about homework are very clear and she states "They really can't prove any benefit in elementary school". "Live Science" dated 30.03.2012 quotes Richard Walker, an educational psychiatrist, Sydney University who says "There is no benefit due to homework for most students until senior high school (grades 10 - 12)". 18. A parenting psychologist Justin Coulson says that there are no good reason for homework for the kids aged under 14 as the homework is stress and burden for children as well as for the parents. 19. In the year 1900 itself, Edward Bok, Editor of "Ladies Home Journal" published an article "A National Crime at the Feet of American Parents" accusing homework of destroying American youth. He opined that the study at home interferes with the Children's natural inclination towards play and free movement and threatens Children's physical and mental health. 20. As stated above, many experts find that homework is beneficial only to older kids whereas young children are notably lacking in "executive control", the ability to concentrate, to follow directions, to control impulses and keep the details in mind. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect the KG students, first and second class students to do homework, assignment on their own and homeworks to class I and II children have to be prohibited. CHILDREN ARE MADE TO HOLD PENCILS WHEN THEY ARE NOT PHYSICALLY READY 21. One more problem the young children face is that they are made to hold pencil and write, whey they are not physically ready. Experts are of the opinion that pre-school should not introduce formal writing until the age of five. Rajalakshmi, M.S., Head of the Department, Early Childhood Education and Administration Course, VHD Central Institute of Home Science States "The fine motor co-ordination and neuromuscular development of the child would not have set in until five years. There is a need to ensure that pre-schools teach age appropriate skills. Rajalakshmi, M.S., Head of the Department, Early Childhood Education and Administration Course, VHD Central Institute of Home Science States "The fine motor co-ordination and neuromuscular development of the child would not have set in until five years. There is a need to ensure that pre-schools teach age appropriate skills. While they can allow them to read and colour using crayons, they should avoid asking the child to use pencil until the age of five". Divya, B.A., a waldrof early child educator opines "Parents and Schools should not urge the children to write when their hands are not ready. In fact, once their motor skills are developed, they will be able to write in a couple of months". CHILDREN REQUIRE MINIMUM 11 HOURS of SLEEP 22. The Doctors say that on average 5 or 6 year old needs about 11 hours of sleep each night and if they leave for school early in the morning, they should have early bed time. Therefore, homeworks would reduce the sleep hours of the growing children. 23. National Sleep Foundation in the United States recommends that preschoolers [3 to 5 years] need 10 to 13 hours of sleep and School aged children [6 to 13 years] need 9 to 11 hours of sleep everyday. Recently, National Sleep Foundation [NSF] convened experts from Sleep, Anatomy, Physiology, Pediatrics, Neurology, Gerontology and Gynecology to reach a consensus regarding appropriate sleep duration. An article "Recommended amount of sleep for pediatric populations: a consensus statement of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine" has been published in Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine Vol 12, No. 6, 2016. It lists the following consensus recommendations: Infants 4 months to 12 months should sleep 12 to 16 hours per 24 hours (including naps) on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Children 1 to 2 years of age should sleep 11 to 14 hours per 24 hours (including naps) on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Children 3 to 5 years of age should sleep 10 to 13 hours per 24 hours (including naps) on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Children 6 to 12 years of age should sleep 9 to 12 hours per 24 hours on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Teenagers 13 to 18 years of age should sleep 8 to 10 hours per 24 hours on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Children 6 to 12 years of age should sleep 9 to 12 hours per 24 hours on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Teenagers 13 to 18 years of age should sleep 8 to 10 hours per 24 hours on a regular basis to promote optimal health. Sleeping the number of recommended hours on a regular basis is associated with better health outcomes including: improved attention, behavior, learning, memory, emotional regulation, quality of life, and mental and physical health. Regularly sleeping fewer than the number of recommended hours is associated with attention, behavior, and learning problems. Insufficient sleep also increases the risk of accidents, injuries, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and depression. Insufficient sleep in teenagers is associated with increased risk of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. Regularly sleeping more than the recommended hours may be associated with adverse health outcomes such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and mental health problems. Parents who are concerned that their child is sleeping too little or too much should consult their health care provider for evaluation of a possible sleep disorder. Recommendations for infants younger than 4 months are not included due to the wide range of normal variation in duration and patterns of sleep, and insufficient evidence for associations with health outcomes. The above recommendations have been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Sleep Research Society and the American Association of Sleep Technologists. 24. A recent study in McGill University in Montria states that the children aged 7 to 11 who have slept an hour less than usual showed signs of irritability, frustration and difficulty in paying attention and those student who have slept an hour extra have better behaved. Dr. Marc Weissbluth in his book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" writes that making sure the child gets food, sound sleep ensures he or she will have a sound foundation for proper mind and body development. Dr. Elsie Taveras, Chief of General Paediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston states "What we found was that insufficient sleep in children was associated with poorer executive function and behaviour". 25. Researchers of the University of Warwick, United Kingdom reviewed the results of 42 Population studies which included a total of 72,499 infants, children and adolescents aged 0 to 18 years old. 25. Researchers of the University of Warwick, United Kingdom reviewed the results of 42 Population studies which included a total of 72,499 infants, children and adolescents aged 0 to 18 years old. Researchers found that short sleepers of all ages weighed more than regular sleepers and overall were 58% more likely to become overweight or obese. 26. Dr. Zach Pearl who had made extensive research on "Sleep deprivation and its effect on child growth" has observed as follows: "Getting enough sleep is important for young children and is key for healthy growth and development. During sleep, the body and brain undergo a process aimed to support their normal functioning. Sleep helps children focus and remember what has been learned and is also vital for their physical and mental health. Disrupted Sleep and Growth Problems During sleep a hormone called human growth hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland (a gland located at the base of the brain). The growth hormone (GH) has important roles in training and recovery. It is also released throughout the day during exercise and physical stress, however for kids, the majority of GH release occurs shortly after deep sleep begins. GH stimulates and coordinates the growth of all body parts from bones to muscles to nerves. In addition to promoting growth in childhood, the hormone helps maintain healthy bodily-tissue during adulthood. Deep, non-REM sleep that occurs early in the night seems to be especially important for GH secretion. If this sleep phase is disrupted, growth may not occur normally. While a single night of poor sleep will not impact growth, chronic sleep problems in young children do. A recently published study showed that children with growth hormone deficiency, experienced substantially less sleep and lower quality of sleep compared to children with normal level of growth hormone. Growth hormone production can also be disrupted in children with certain physical sleep problems, such as obstructive sleep apnea. These children have periodic obstructions in their upper airway that can cause snoring or pauses in their breathing. The body awakens itself into lighter sleep to open the airway and resume normal breathing. As a result, deeper sleep becomes fragmented and growth hormone secretion may be compromised. Sleep deprivation linked to obesity, diabetes stress and heart problems Growth hormone is not the only hormone affected by chronic sleep deprivation in young children. The body awakens itself into lighter sleep to open the airway and resume normal breathing. As a result, deeper sleep becomes fragmented and growth hormone secretion may be compromised. Sleep deprivation linked to obesity, diabetes stress and heart problems Growth hormone is not the only hormone affected by chronic sleep deprivation in young children. Hormones that regulate hunger and appetite such as insulin and cortisol (stress hormone) are also affected. Young children who do not get sufficient sleep for long periods of time have abnormally low levels of insulin, which can lead to diabetes and weight management problems. Recent studies show that children who do not get enough sleep are at significantly higher risk of becoming overweight, compared with children who get sufficient sleep. Additionally, children with deprived sleep have high cortisol levels in their bloodstreams causing high level of stress. Sleep deprivation can also affect motor skills and concentration during the day in young children, and can lead to behavioural problems and poor performance at school." 27. Moreover, children are distracted in many ways depriving their regular sleep nowadays. They spend more time a day on mobile screen and also Television screen, endangering their health. With all these distractions and reduction in sleep time, when young children are forced to do homework, it would cause unwanted stress, anxiety and depression in them. Therefore, NCERT rightly prescribed no homework for I and II standard students which is in consonance with the above mentioned research works. 28. It is common knowledge that Class I and II students are prescribed homework by all the schools which is also liked and welcomed by the parents, going against physical and mental wellness of the children. As observed above, many researchers found that minimum required sleep hours for the children of age 5 and 6 is 9 to 12 hours. The children should have enough time for playing which is essential for the growth of children mentally and physically. Apart from that, the children should have time to interact with friends, neighbours, relatives and outer world, which is unfortunately lacking nowadays. Prescribing and doing home work by the younger children deprive them of the required sleep, which would cause adverse health affects. NO SUBJECT OTHER THAN NCERT PRESCRIBED SUBJECTS FOR CLASS I & II 29. Apart from that, the children should have time to interact with friends, neighbours, relatives and outer world, which is unfortunately lacking nowadays. Prescribing and doing home work by the younger children deprive them of the required sleep, which would cause adverse health affects. NO SUBJECT OTHER THAN NCERT PRESCRIBED SUBJECTS FOR CLASS I & II 29. The respondents 1 and 2 would give the details of the recommended books for various classes and they are as follows: Classes I and II - 2 books namely, Language and Mathematics Classes III to V - 3 books namely, Language, ERS and Mathematics. NCF 2005 recommends values and ICT to be integrated in subject areas, since in the constructive approach, Children learn to access information rather than rot memorize information from the book including General Knowledge. 30. The respondents 1 and 2 also suggest schools to teach 2 or 3 subjects in one day and 2 or 3 subjects, the next day, so as to enable the students to have more time to do activities and to develop deeper understanding of the concept. It would also lessen the weight of the school bag. Though NCERT syllabus prescribes only Language and Mathematics for classes I and II, it could be seen from the syllabus prescribed by CBSE schools which is brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by producing syllabus of some of the CBSE schools that 8 subjects viz., English, Maths, Tamil, Science, Computer Science, General Knowledge, Moral Instructions and Hindi have been prescribed for Class I and II students. 31. It is shocking and surprising to note that grammar and computer science have been prescribed for Class I students. It is not understandable as to how five year old children could comprehend the concept of computer or understand "General Knowledge". Further teaching of grammar shall not be a subject for children as per NCERT syllabus Vol I - Elementary level. From the above, it is evident that CBSE schools are unnecessarily pressurizing the children by teaching irrelevant subjects which have not been prescribed by NCERT or by CBSE. 32. Further teaching of grammar shall not be a subject for children as per NCERT syllabus Vol I - Elementary level. From the above, it is evident that CBSE schools are unnecessarily pressurizing the children by teaching irrelevant subjects which have not been prescribed by NCERT or by CBSE. 32. In view of the categorical assertion made by NCERT as well as CBSE in their respective Counter Affidavits and issuance of circulars by CBSE requiring the schools to follow the CBSE syllabus as prescribed by NCERT, there shall be a direction to the respondents, especially 3 to 5 to prohibit the CBSE schools from either prescribing or teaching any other subjects other than those prescribed by NCERT viz., Language and Mathematics for Classes I and II Language, EVS and Mathematics for Classes III to V. 33. The syllabus has been finalized at various stages by the experts based on the NCF as approved by the Government, according to the age of the children. NCERT syllabus is age appropriate. It is to be noted that the Central Government intends to reduce the existing syllabus by 50% for the school children as per the newspaper reports. Therefore any attempt to prescribe and teach subjects which have not been prescribed by NCERT would definitely affect the children causing unnecessary pressure, fear, stress, mental agony, health hazards etc. 34. Further, non-prescribed home work for Class I & II children and studying six subjects over and above language and maths for Class I & II and 5 subjects over and above language, EVS and mathematics for class III & IV would create fear, stress and agony in the minds of young kids and reduce the required sleeping time of children causing adverse health hazards to the children. Young children should learn with joy and enthusiasm and any pressure would definitely make the learning horrible. Frustration and fear created in the minds of younger children cannot be so easily cured and it would last for long affecting later part of the children's life. 35. Similar is the case in State Board schools and in other systems. Young children are taxed with home work and unnecessary subjects. This Court is aware of the fact that "Education" is in "Concurrent list". In view of the research reports and opinion of the experts, in the interest of the children, States should also follow the directions issued for NCERT. Young children are taxed with home work and unnecessary subjects. This Court is aware of the fact that "Education" is in "Concurrent list". In view of the research reports and opinion of the experts, in the interest of the children, States should also follow the directions issued for NCERT. Therefore, the first respondent/Union Government is directed to direct the State Governments, (1) Not to prescribe any homework for Class I & II students in the State Board/Matriculation/Anglo Indian schools in the states. (2) Not to prescribe any other subjects except language and Mathematics for Class I & II students and language EVS and mathematics for classes III to V. 36. International standards do not let the children carry school bags that weigh more than 10% of their body weight. However, in reality the school children are made to carry heavy loads of books and note books. 37. The school bags are made very heavy causing health hazards to the Children. Children are made to carry books and note books unnecessarily. No stake holder is interested to look into the issue. Only States of Telangana and Maharashtra took serious note of this pressing issue and issued appropriate guidelines restricting the weight of school bags. 38. Based on the warnings from Health Experts and complaints from parents, the State of Telangana Government issued a G.O. Ms. No. 22, dated 18.07.2017 listing out guidelines to limit the weight of school bags of students and further prohibits giving any home works for the students of classes I to V. The circular states that the spine of young children is most susceptible to "hazards" such as back pain, muscle pain, shoulder pain, fatigue in extreme cases, distraction of spinal cords and shoulders. The maximum weight of school bags with text books and note books should not exceed 1.5 kg for children in classes I and II and 2 to 3 kg for children studying in Classes III to V, 4 kg for classes VI and VII, 4.5 kg for classes VIII and IX and 5 kg for class X whereas in reality the children are forced to carry weight up to 6 to 12 kg at primary level and up to 17 kgs at Higher Secondary School Level as per New Report. 39. 39. The Maharashtra Government issued a circular in March 2016 prescribing limits for weight of school bags carried by students and directed the officers to implement School bag policy, 2015 which states that the bags should not exceed 10% of the child's weight. 40. A study conducted by the Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India [ASSOCHAM] found that almost 65% of Indian School Children aged between 7 to 13 years develop chronic backaches, spondylitis, postural scoliosis on early degeneration of the spine owing to the heavy backpack as majority of these children carry over 45% of the body weight in the form of bags, kits, sports equipments, instruments or study apparatus every alternate day. Heavy and uneven loads on the young children could easily lead to irreversible back problems and spinal deformation. 41. A study was conducted in Puducherry schools and the study was reported in "Indian Journal of Pain" Year 2017 Volume 31 Issue No. 2, Page Nos. 119-126 "Prevalence and patterns of musculoskeletal pain (MSP) among school students in Puducherry and its association with sociodemographic and contextual factors". In the conclusion of the said study, it is stated as follows:- "In conclusion, 86.2% school children in a private school in Puducherry, belonging to 7th and 8th grade had experienced MSP in the preceding 2 weeks. More than one-fourth of them had this pain as a chronic pain (more than 6 months). Shoulders, neck, and knees were reported to be the most commonly affected body parts. Significant association of MSP was found with participants' grade of study, perception of bag weight, comfort level of carrying bag and duration of carrying bag. Factors such as pain affecting daily activities and number of health-care consultations were significantly associated with school attendance. Urgent interventions are required from schools and government authorities in education sector regarding addressing MSP among school children, especially those studying in private sector. Screening for MSP in school children should be carried out and appropriate referral be made to a consulting physician. MSP should be introduced as a part of school health checkup. Regulation of bag use should be more stringent, and parents and students should be made aware of the consequences of a heavy backpack." The above study would demonstrate the adverse effect of heavy school bags on the Children. 42. MSP should be introduced as a part of school health checkup. Regulation of bag use should be more stringent, and parents and students should be made aware of the consequences of a heavy backpack." The above study would demonstrate the adverse effect of heavy school bags on the Children. 42. Though "The Children School Bags [Limitation on Weight] Bill, 2006, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, it was later shelved. The said bill was introduced with an objective to provide for limitation on the weight of school bags, duties and responsibilities of the schools to ensure the compliance of the limitations so imposed and to provide lockers in schools and to issue necessary instructions for handling and carrying of school bags by children and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it has not been implemented. Therefore, there is a necessity to enact law in the lines of "The Children School Bags (Limitation on Weight) Bill, 2006" by the Union Government or by the State Governments to reduce bag weights. 43. As per Section 3 of the said Bill it shall be the duty of the appropriate Government [State Government] to ensure that weight of the school bag to be carried by the child of a particular class shall not be more than 10% of the weight of the child. In the absence of any Act in this regard either by the Central Government or by the State Governments, a few State Governments and Union Territories have issued circulars, guidelines in the lines of "The Children School Bags (Limitation on Weight) Bill, 2006" namely, State of Telangana and State of Maharashtra. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the first respondent/Central Government which shall direct the State and Union Territories to take a policy on "School bags" and issue guidelines in the lines of "The Children School Bags (Limitation on Weight) Bill, 2006" reducing the weight of the school bags, according to the class. 44. This Court is aware of the mentality of parents. They admit their wards in schools even before completion of three years to suit their convenience viz., to earn money, when the children are supposed to be in the company of elders in the family and play with children in the neighbourhood. 44. This Court is aware of the mentality of parents. They admit their wards in schools even before completion of three years to suit their convenience viz., to earn money, when the children are supposed to be in the company of elders in the family and play with children in the neighbourhood. When the children have to play, shout, scream and converse, they are sent to schools, where they are asked to keep quiet, contrary to age appropriate natural behaviour. The parents thrust their wishes on their children and expect them to learn more subjects, which are not age appropriate, to face the alleged hyper-competition in getting admissions to professional colleges and in getting employment. 45. It would not be an overstatement if it is said that the overambitious parents are also responsible for spoiling the childhood and joy of learning. It is the right of children to enjoy their childhood naturally dehors the interference by parents and others. Thrusting something in the name of education, at an inappropriate age, would amount to violating the fundamental rights and basic human rights of children. Under Juvenile Justice Act, nobody could inflict cruelty, stress, etc. on the children. Governments should be vigilant enough to see that conducive atmosphere is provided to the children for their growth without any strain or stress. 46. Therefore, this Court holds that, (i) The children have fundamental and basic human right to enjoy their natural childhood with joy and enthusiasm without any stress; (ii) Children should not be overburdened with many subjects; (iii) Children are entitled to minimum sleeping hours as per their age as per Doctors' opinion which is a fundamental right as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (iv) Deprivation of required sleep in time would affect the children mentally and physically causing adverse effects; (v) The children should not be allowed/made to hold pencils till they become five year olds; (vi) Children are entitled to conducive learning environment; (vii) They are entitled to study without any stress and trauma; (viii) Homeworks given to Classes I and II students would put pressure on them and affect sleeping time of the children. (ix) Compulsion to read non-prescribed books which are not age appropriate would have adverse effects on younger minds. (x) Children should not be made to carry heavy school bags at the risk of their health and carry light school bags. 47. (ix) Compulsion to read non-prescribed books which are not age appropriate would have adverse effects on younger minds. (x) Children should not be made to carry heavy school bags at the risk of their health and carry light school bags. 47. Children are the assets of our nation. They have to be nurtured properly and taught age appropriate education which would foster creativity in the minds of younger children. The level of education has to be balanced as per the age and ability of the child giving enough scope for holistic overall development of the child which includes play and social skills. Any attempt to thrust unnecessary subjects over and above the subjects prescribed by NCERT would definitely affect the mind and health of the children causing fear, anxiety, stress in their minds and in the minds of parents. Therefore, this Court has to issue directions safeguarding our children. The directions are to be effected from the academic year 2018-19 onwards. Any attempt to violate the order of this Court would be viewed very seriously as it affects the young children and our nation. 48. For the above reasons, the following directions are given: (a) Direction to the respondents, especially the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to prohibit CBSE schools from prescribing any homework to Class I and II students. (b) Direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to constitute flying squads to randomly verify that Class I and II children are not given homework. (c) Direction to the first respondent/Union Government to direct all the State Governments and union territories forthwith, not to prescribe any homework for Class I & II students in the State Board/Matriculation/Anglo Indian schools. (d) Direction to the first respondent/Union Government to direct the State Governments forthwith, not to prescribe any other subjects except language and Mathematics for Class I & II students and language, EVS and mathematics for Class III to V students as prescribed by NCERT. (e) Direction to the respondents to disaffiliate schools prescribing homeworks and non-prescribed subjects for Class I and II students and class III to V students. (f) Directions to the respondents especially, respondents 3 to 5 to prescribe and use NCERT books alone as per CBSE circular dated 09.08.2017 and other circulars. (g) Direction to the Union Government to formulate a policy forthwith in the lines of "The Children School Bags (Limitation on Weight) Bill, 2006". (f) Directions to the respondents especially, respondents 3 to 5 to prescribe and use NCERT books alone as per CBSE circular dated 09.08.2017 and other circulars. (g) Direction to the Union Government to formulate a policy forthwith in the lines of "The Children School Bags (Limitation on Weight) Bill, 2006". (h) Direction to the Union Government, the first respondent herein to direct the State Governments and Governments of Union Territories forthwith to formulate "Children School Bag Policy" reducing the weight of the School bags in the line of guidelines issued by either State of Telangana or State of Maharashtra. (i) Direction to the Union Government, the first respondent herein to direct the State Governments and Governments of Union Territories forthwith to form special squads to inspect the schools and prevent the use of non-prescribed books. (j) The respondents are directed to issue circulars to the schools incorporating the orders of this Court forthwith and file a report within four weeks. 49. Children, who are the future of this country, should be shaped properly by providing them age appropriate education, training, without any stress and agony. If they are put to stress and agony, it is likely to have a lasting impact on their physical and mental well-being. In that event, they cannot become good and responsible citizens of our country. It is therefore, the collective duty of parents, teachers and the Government to see that the children are allowed to enjoy their childhood; admitted in schools after attaining the appropriate age and provided conducive atmosphere for stress-free education. Parents should not be overambitious to make their children No. 1 in education. This kind of attitude or mindset is unwarranted as it will not help any of the stakeholders. Knowledge is different from information. The education imparted to children should enable them to gain knowledge rather than store information. Children should be allowed to develop life skills, which will go a long way in helping them in every stage of their life. Our country has got rich man power, especially, the children form 35% of the population and if they are properly educated, then the future of our country would be bright. Even about 2400 years ago, the Greek Philosopher Plato insisted not to force children into learning. Our country has got rich man power, especially, the children form 35% of the population and if they are properly educated, then the future of our country would be bright. Even about 2400 years ago, the Greek Philosopher Plato insisted not to force children into learning. "Do not train children in learning by force and harshness, but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy, the peculiar bent of genius of each" 50. Call the matter after four weeks for filing compliance reports and passing further directions.