There is a difference between raising a demand and having the power to fulfil it. That difference appears particularly important in the recent debate over the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution seeking exemption from TET for teachers appointed before October 31, 2019. The resolution, moved by School Education Minister Sakeena Itoo, urges the Union Government to amend Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and also seeks necessary action through the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
The resolution has understandably generated hope among thousands of teachers. But there is one uncomfortable question that needs to be asked:
Can the Jammu and Kashmir Government itself scrap the mandatory TET requirement?
The answer, under the present legal position, is no. And this is precisely where political announcements must be separated from legal reality.
The TET requirement flows from the RTE framework and the standards prescribed under it. The Supreme Court, in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, held in September 2025 that the TET requirement applies to in-service teachers in the circumstances specified by the Court. The Court also held that TET is mandatory for promotion.
More importantly, when review petitions were considered in May 2026, the Supreme Court did not withdraw the requirement. Instead, it extended the compliance period to 31 August 2028 for the teachers covered by the direction. The Court also directed that TET should be conducted periodically so that teachers have reasonable opportunities to qualify.
So, what exactly has the J&K Assembly done?
It has made a political and legislative appeal to the Union Government. That is a legitimate constitutional and democratic course. An elected Assembly can express the collective position of the people it represents and request the competent authority to change the law.
But a resolution is not the same thing as an amendment to a Central law.
It is not the same thing as an NCTE notification.
And it is certainly not the same thing as the Supreme Court withdrawing its judgment.
The wording of the resolution itself makes this clear. The Assembly has asked the Union Government to amend Section 23 and has requested the necessary notification through the NCTE. Therefore, telling teachers that the TET requirement has effectively been removed would create a dangerous misunderstanding.
Teachers deserve clarity, not political comfort
Nobody can deny that the concerns of long-serving teachers deserve serious consideration. A teacher who has spent 20 or 25 years in a classroom may understandably question why a test should suddenly become a condition affecting continuation or promotion.
The Supreme Court itself recognised the difficult circumstances of long-serving teachers in its 2025 judgment. It noted that some teachers had served for two or three decades and had been teaching students to the best of their ability. The Court nevertheless retained the TET requirement while creating limited relief for certain categories of teachers.
That complexity deserves an honest public discussion.
The government should certainly present the case of J&K’s teachers before the appropriate constitutional and statutory authorities.
It should seek an exemption if it believes an exemption is justified.
It should pursue the matter before the Centre.
It should make every legal effort before the Supreme Court.
But teachers also deserve to know exactly what has been achieved and what remains only a request.
Is this about teachers—or about politics?
The timing and presentation of political announcements inevitably invite political interpretation. The ruling National Conference government has publicly positioned itself as standing with the teaching community on this issue, and Minister Sakeena Itoo has strongly emphasised the dignity and contribution of teachers. The government has also approached the Supreme Court, according to the minister’s statements reported during the Assembly debate.
There is nothing wrong with a government defending its teachers. But there is a problem if political messaging creates an impression of legal action having already been completed when the final authority lies elsewhere.
If teachers are told, directly or indirectly, that TET is going to disappear, many may understandably stop treating the examination as a serious requirement.
What happens if the Centre does not accept the requested amendment?
What happens if the NCTE does not issue the proposed notification?
What happens if the Supreme Court’s existing position continues?
These questions deserve answers.
Do not turn qualified teachers into “foolish intellectuals”
Jammu and Kashmir has a highly educated teaching community. Many teachers possess postgraduate degrees, NET, SET, PhD and years of classroom experience. They are not incapable of understanding the law.
They understand the difference between a resolution, a statutory amendment, an executive notification and a judicial order. Therefore, the government should not communicate with them as though a resolution itself has settled the matter.
A highly qualified teacher should be given the complete truth, even when that truth is inconvenient. If the government is seeking an exemption, say clearly:
“We have demanded an exemption.”
If the Centre grants it, say: “The exemption has been granted.”
If the law is amended, say: “The law has been amended.”
But until then, a resolution remains a resolution.
The real issue should be the teachers’ future
Perhaps the better approach would be to combine political representation with practical preparation. The government can continue its legal and constitutional efforts for an exemption. At the same time, it should ensure that TET examinations are conducted regularly in J&K, provide adequate opportunities to teachers, establish proper preparation support and ensure that no teacher is left struggling because of administrative delay.
The Supreme Court itself has indicated that the competent authorities should conduct TET periodically, preferably twice a year.
That would be a constructive approach.
Fight for the exemption if you believe it is justified.
But do not leave teachers uncertain about the existing law.
A resolution can raise hope. Only law can change the requirement.
The unanimous resolution of the J&K Assembly is politically significant because it reflects support across the House for seeking relief for pre-2019 teachers. But its significance should not be confused with legal finality. The real test begins now.
Will the Union Government amend the law?
Will the NCTE issue the necessary notification?
Will the Supreme Court’s position change?
Until one of these legal developments occurs, the existing requirement remains relevant for the teachers covered by the Court’s directions. That is why the teachers of Jammu and Kashmir deserve something more valuable than political slogans:
They deserve clarity.
Do not make highly educated teachers wait in a fog created by the difference between what a government wants to happen and what it has the legal power to make happen. If the government succeeds in securing an exemption, it will have achieved something concrete.
Until then, let us call the resolution what it actually is:
a demand for change—not the change itself.
And perhaps that distinction is the minimum respect that we owe to the intellectual capacity of our teachers.
Email: paryazdot11@gmail.com