Sex education has long been a controversial topic in India, with public opinion sharply divided. One of the most debated moments came in 2007, when the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) introduced the Adolescence Education Program (AEP).
The program, launched by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development along with the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), aimed to educate students about puberty, sexual health, HIV/AIDS prevention, and life skills. It was designed for students of Classes IX and XI, with a minimum of 16 instructional hours per academic year.
Why Six States Objected to the AEP
The AEP was meant to be implemented in states, in collaboration with State AIDS Control Societies (SACS). But the program quickly ran into trouble. A central question stirred controversy: Should 15-year-olds be shown anatomical diagrams explaining how adolescent bodies develop?
Between February and May 2007, six states—Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala—raised objections. State leaders argued that the course content was too explicit, culturally inappropriate, and unsuitable for school environments.
State Opposition
Kerala suspended the program temporarily and set up a new board to revise the textbooks. In Madhya Pradesh, then Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan wrote to the HRD Ministry, stating that the material went against Indian culture.
In Rajasthan, Education Minister Ghanshyam Tiwari called the curriculum “disgraceful” and accused it of corrupting young minds. Karnataka’s Chief Minister at the time, H.D. Kumaraswamy, also opposed it, claiming that while sex education might be necessary for Western countries, it would have adverse effects on Indian youth.
The resistance did not stop at political statements. Teachers and parents protested in several regions, with some educators even burning training materials to express their outrage. Many parents said they hadn’t sent their children to school to be exposed to such content.
The Broader Debate
Opponents claimed the AEP was “promiscuity-promoting” and harmful to traditional values. But advocates saw it as essential for youth safety and awareness, especially in the context of India’s rising HIV/AIDS rates.
By 2006, India had the highest number of HIV cases in the world—estimated at 5.7 million. One senior health official warned that banning sex education on cultural grounds put young lives at risk and weakened the national response to the epidemic.
Sujata Rao, then Director of the AIDS Organization, told the media while defending the program:
We are not giving any ideas to young people. They are already there. Some people are in denial that young people experiment with sex. They need to get real. This is a basic question of saving lives.Sujata Rao, Director of AIDS Organization
She pointed out that one-third of reported HIV cases were in the 15–29 age group, and half of all new infections were among young people—emphasizing the urgency of effective education.
Vandana Sharma, Director of the Nari Raksha Samiti, echoed these concerns. With greater access to Western media through television, cinema, and the internet, she argued, young people were already aware of changing social norms and relationships, making it even more necessary to educate them responsibly.
Aftermath
In response to public outcry, the Centre revised the AEP curriculum. Explicit diagrams and terminology were removed, and the material was reframed using more culturally neutral language.
Some states later reintroduced aspects of the program under different names, often blending it with broader life-skills education. In 2020, the Ministry made another attempt to promote the updated version of AEP, but it faced similar resistance. Eventually, a milder version was adopted by some states, while others continued to avoid formal sex education entirely.
Current Status
In 2009, Jharkhand launched UDAAN, a school-based adolescent education program for Classes VI to XI. The initiative focused on life skills, health, and responsible decision-making. By 2019, UDAAN had reached over one million students and continues to run today.
Karnataka, meanwhile, had rejected the program outright in 2011 despite recommendations from UNICEF and child rights groups. However, after years of debate, the state now plans to introduce sex education in 2025 for students of Classes VIII to XII, alongside moral education for younger grades.
According to the new plan, students will attend sex education classes twice a week, conducted by local doctors. These sessions aim to help teenagers understand physical, emotional, and hormonal changes, along with key topics like reproductive health, hygiene, and responsible decision-making.
Schools will also set up counseling services to support students facing behavioral or emotional difficulties. Police personnel will be invited to educate children about the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Moral education will also be made compulsory up to Class XI, with weekly sessions.
Looking Ahead
Nearly two decades after the 2007 controversy, the debate over school-based sex education remains alive. While programs like Jharkhand’s UDAAN and Karnataka’s upcoming plan suggest a gradual shift toward structured adolescent education, the approach continues to vary widely across states.
The 2007 suspensions were driven by concerns over explicit content and cultural fit—debates that continue to shape sex‑education policy today.
Balancing cultural values with health needs remains the central challenge. Whether the latest efforts succeed will depend on how they are implemented and on how ongoing debates shape the acceptance of such programs in the years ahead.
MSM/SE