Delhi HC seeks response on minority schools’ plea against fee regulation law

The Act aims 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”.

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

For representational purposes only. (Arvind Yadav/HT Photo)

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tejas Karia sought the Delhi government’s Directorate of Education (DOE) and Lieutenant Governor’s response, and fixed March 12 as the next date of hearing when it will also hear another batch of petitions filed by the Association of Private Schools against the same Act.

The court also extended the benefit of its Thursday’s order permitting the schools to set up the School Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) for the academic year 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.

The Act, notified on December 10, aims 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.

Following its notification, the Delhi government had issued a notification mandating all Delhi schools, including private unaided, minority educational institutions, those given land on concessional rates, to constitute a School Level Fee Regulation Committee (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 is 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 added.

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.