Court issues order to transfer child to LKG

The High Court has issued an interim order instructing the transfer of a child from nursery to Lower Kindergarten (LKG), despite the Ministry of Education’s policy requiring repetition of the nursery grade due to age restrictions.

The child, enrolled at Kangaroo Kids Play School in Malé, completed the 2024 academic year in nursery. However, at the beginning of the current academic year, the Ministry decided the child must repeat the year. The decision was based on a circular that limits entry to LKG to children aged four to five years as of 31 December. The child in question turns four on the 13th of this month.

The Civil Court had previously ruled against the parents’ request for promotion, holding that annual progression through grades was subject to the Ministry’s age guidelines, even if academic benchmarks were met. The parents appealed to the High Court and sought an interim order to allow the child to begin LKG pending a final decision.

The parents argued that the child demonstrated advanced cognitive and academic ability compared to peers, supported by psychological assessments and documentation from a medical professional. They stated that repeating the previous year's curriculum could negatively affect the child's interest in learning and educational development.

Their legal counsel further submitted that the Ministry’s action contradicted the principles set out in the Education Act and the Child Rights Protection Act by failing to prioritise the child’s individual educational needs.

The state, however, argued that the Education Act sets age limits for pre-school admissions and that academic assessments do not override these statutory thresholds. The state contended that the parents had no enforceable legal right to request grade advancement outside the established framework.

The High Court bench issued a majority decision ordering the Ministry of Education and relevant authorities to permit the child to attend LKG within 15 days. In the order, the Court cited the child’s psychological well-being and the absence of administrative harm to the Ministry due to the child attending a private school.

Presiding Justice Dheebanaaz Fahmy stated that the child’s specific circumstances and the potential for irreversible developmental harm warranted judicial intervention. Justice Fathimath Farheeza concurred.

Dissenting Justice Mohamed Niyaz held that the existing legal framework defines the age and progression standards for students and that individual interests should not override the collective structure of the national education system. He argued that no legal grounds existed to compel the Ministry to allow grade advancement through interim relief in this instance.