The High Court has ruled in favor of a mother whose child was made to repeat a year in play school, overturning an earlier Civil Court decision and directing the State to reassess the child’s academic placement.
The case stems from a 2024 decision by a school to hold the student back instead of promoting them to baby nursery. The school cited an Education Ministry circular that sets age limits for admission into lower primary grades.
Dispute Rooted in Education Ministry Age Criteria
According to the ministry’s circular, children enrolled in LKG in 2025 must be four years old and not yet five by December 2024. The student in question did not meet this age requirement, leading the school to refuse promotion on the grounds that ministry approval would not be granted.
The child’s mother challenged the decision and appealed directly to the Education Ministry. However, the ministry responded that the policy could not be altered, leaving the family with no option but to pursue legal action.
Civil Court Declines to Intervene
The case was first heard at the Civil Court, where judges ruled that the ministry’s decision fell within the authority granted under the Education Act. As a result, the court stated it had no legal basis to issue an order against the ministry.
Unwilling to accept the ruling, the mother appealed to the High Court. She also requested an interim order allowing her child to continue studying in LKG while the case was under review. The High Court granted this interim relief.
High Court Overturns Civil Court Decision
The High Court delivered its verdict yesterday, annulling the Civil Court’s ruling. In its judgment, the court instructed the State to fairly reassess all submitted evaluations and facts related to the child’s unique circumstances, with the involvement of relevant education professionals.
The ministry has now been directed to reconsider which grade the student should be placed in, based on a fresh and comprehensive review.
Violation of Legitimate Expectation
The High Court found that the State had acted against the principle of “legitimate expectation” after previously promoting the child from one grade to another. The court also noted that there was no legal justification to suggest that the child’s constitutional rights under Article 36 had been violated.
In a broader reflection, the court emphasized that while the Maldives may be a small nation with limited resources, it is home to highly capable and sharp-minded children.
Court Highlights Gifted Students and Systemic Gaps
The judgment pointed to strong A Level results as evidence of the academic potential of Maldivian students. The court observed that when the State is unable to fully elevate the academic capacity of all students, it has a responsibility to provide additional support to children who repeat grades or demonstrate advanced intellectual ability.
According to the ruling, such measures should help students progress through the education system in a way that preserves their intellectual sharpness and provides appropriate academic challenges.
The High Court stressed the need for the Education Ministry to establish structured policies and regulatory frameworks for children who are intellectually ahead of their age group. Rather than relying on assessments arranged by parents, the ministry was urged to develop fair and standardized mechanisms to guide the academic journey of gifted students.
While acknowledging that such reforms would require time and research, the court called on the State to act swiftly in creating pathways for academically advanced children.
The judgment concluded by stating that although it may not always be possible to redesign the entire system for a single child, the interests of intellectually gifted students must be considered. A system that nurtures their abilities and supports their growth, the court said, should exist in the Maldives.
