By Ashok Pandey
On February 28, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court delivered a crucial judgment concerning the use of smartphones in schools. While some have interpreted it as complete relaxation of existing restrictions, a closer analysis reveals that the ruling reinforces structured policies that some schools already practice. Equally, the judgment nudges schools to devise a comprehensive policy that is transparent and fair. Let’s analyse what this judgment means for educators, students, and parents.
Current status and logistical challenges
Most schools prohibit the open use of smartphones within their premises. Schools have arrangements for safe deposit of smartphones, particularly for students who need them for safety reasons. But managing this process efficiently adds an administrative burden, requiring a careful balance between student safety and operational feasibility.
The ruling also prohibits smartphone use in classrooms, common areas, or school vehicles, and certainly not that’s detrimental to studies. Schools have always feared misuse and asked what is the necessity of bringing smartphones to schools at all? While the judgment does not support a complete ban, it emphasises structured regulation, leaving it to schools to frame policies that align with their educational priorities.
Another aspect that requires clarity is whether these guidelines apply equally to all students, from a four-year-old to a 17-year-old? Should primary schoolchildren be allowed to bring smartphones under the same conditions as senior students?
The High Court order: Not a free pass
The judgment is best understood as a framework rather than a green light for unrestricted use. Schools should treat it as an opportunity to reaffirm and refine their existing policies, ensuring clarity in communication with students, teachers, and parents. While the ruling does not explicitly prohibit smartphones, it does not endorse unrestricted access either.
International perspective
Globally, education systems have been grappling with similar concerns regarding smartphone use in schools. According to the UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report (2023), technology, including smartphones, should only be used in classrooms when it demonstrably enhances learning outcomes. The report also highlights concerns that excessive smartphone use can distract students and negatively impact academic performance.
By the end of 2023, approximately 30% of education systems worldwide had implemented bans on smartphone use in schools, and the number rose to 40% by 2024. Countries like France and the Netherlands have enforced strict policies regulating smartphone usage, ensuring that technology remains a tool for learning rather than a distraction. Sweden, on the other hand, decided recently to reintroduce physical textbooks after experiencing unintended consequences of a digital-only approach introduced since 2009.
These international trends suggest that the Delhi High Court’s ruling is not an isolated development but rather part of a global movement towards structured and regulated smartphone use in schools. Given the considerations in the judgment, schools should take steps to clarify existing policies, frame age-appropriate policies, engage with parents, and explore alternative communication methods.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court ruling is not a seismic shift but a structured reinforcement of practices already in place. Schools must approach it with clarity and responsibility, ensuring that it is not misinterpreted as permission for unrestricted smartphone use. Instead, this advisory should be seen as an opportunity to reaffirm policies that support student well-being, academic focus, and digital responsibility. School leaders must proactively shape the discourse to prevent confusion and ensure smooth implementation in the best interest of students and educators alike.
The author is a former school principal.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.