Delhi HC issues notice in plea challenging fee regulation act

Delhi High Court hears a petition challenging the Delhi School Education Fee Act, aimed at regulating private school fees, with a next hearing set for March 12.

New Delhi

The next hearing is scheduled for March 12. (Representative photo/HT Archive)

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice in a petition filed by Forum of Minority Schools challenging the constitutionality of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025.

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tejas Karia sought responses from the Delhi government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) and lieutenant governor, and scheduled the next hearing for March 12—when it would also hear another batch of petitions filed by the Association of Private Schools against the same Act.

The court also permitted schools to set up the school-level fee regulation committee (SLFRC) for 2025-26 by January 20, instead of January 10.

“Issue notice. List on March 12. The benefit of the January 8 order shall be available to the petitioners as well,” the court said in its order on Thursday.

The Act, notified on December 10, 2025, seeks to rein in “arbitrary” fee hikes by private schools and provides a “permanent solution to a long-ignored issue that affects millions of parents and children in Delhi”. It mandates that all fee hikes in private schools must be approved through a transparent, three-tier committee system involving parents, school management and government representatives.

The constitutionality of the act, however, has been challenged since in multiple petitions, filed by Action Committee of Unaided Recognised Schools, NGO Justice for All, Forum for Promotion of Quality Education, Society of Catholic School of Archdiocese of Delhi, and Ryan International School, among others.

Following the notification of the act, the Delhi government mandated all Delhi schools, including private unaided, minority educational institutions and those given land on concessional rates, to constitute a SLFRC for the current academic session.

The 11-member SLRFC, it said, must be constituted by January 10 and include a chairperson, a principal, five parents, three teachers, and one representative from the directorate of education (DOE).

The notification, which the government said was aimed at ensuring uniformity in fees for the 2025–26 academic session, required schools to submit their proposed fee structure within 15 days of the committee’s constitution (January 25). Any delay or non-compliance was made actionable under the Act.

In the petition, argued by senior advocate Romy Chacko, the forum contended that various provisions in the Act, including the constitution of the SLFRC, violated the fundamental right of minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution to administer their educational institutions, including the right to fix fees, as recognised in several rulings of the Supreme Court of India.

Chacko further contended that limiting the SLFRC to only two management representatives effectively curtails the institution’s right to determine its own fee structure. He also argued that empowering the SLFRC to fix fees binding on the school for three academic years was arbitrary and unlawful, as it effectively gives the committee a veto over the school’s fee decisions.

“SLFRC has to approve my fees. The prior approval clause is a direct invasion of Article 30. Prior approval cannot apply to minority institutions, as they stand on a different footing,” the senior counsel said.

The DoE, represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju, opposed the contentions, arguing that fee regulation does not affect the right of the minority educational institutions since it is permissible as a regulatory measure and did not contravene Article 30 of the Constitution.