February 1 fee order is one-time measure, DoE tells Delhi high court

In its affidavit filed on Monday, the DoE submitted that any delay in implementing the statutory framework governing fee regulation from April 1 would frustrate the very objective of the Act

The Delhi government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) informed the Delhi high court that its February 1 decision to reschedule the constitution of school-level fee regulation committees (SLFRCs) from July 15 to February 10 was a “one-time measure” undertaken to facilitate the implementation of a regulated fee structure for the academic session beginning April 1.

On February 9, the high court directed the DoE not to insist on the constitution of SLFRCs until February 20. (HT Archive)

On February 1, the DoE issued a notification titled the Delhi School Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, directing all schools to constitute SLFRCs by February 10 to fix fees for three academic years commencing 2026–27.

The notification was challenged by the Forum of Minority Schools, the Action Committee of Unaided Recognised Private Schools, the Delhi Public School Society, and the Rohini Educational Society on the ground that it was contrary to the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which stipulates that such committees must be constituted by July 15.

On February 9, the high court directed the DoE not to insist on the constitution of SLFRCs until February 20.

In its affidavit filed on Monday, the DoE submitted that any delay in implementing the statutory framework governing fee regulation from April 1 would frustrate the very objective of the Act.

The 126-page affidavit, which is scheduled to be considered by a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia on Friday, contended that such a delay could undermine efforts to curb profiteering and prevent the regulated fee structure from being applied from the start of the next academic year.

The affidavit, filed through Parinam Law Associates, stated that the impugned Removal of Difficulties Order was issued to ensure that only regulated fees are collected by schools in accordance with section 3 of the Act. It added that, to make the regulated fee applicable from April 1, 2026, for the academic year 2026–27 onwards, timelines were fixed through the February 1, 2026 notification, which, it said, is in consonance with the object, letter and spirit of the 2025 Act.

The DoE further stated that it had initially planned to enforce the Act from the academic year 2025–26 and had issued an order on December 24, 2025 prescribing a special timeline for fee determination for that year. However, it later decided not to implement the Act for 2025–26 and instead issued the February 1 notification. The DoE said the decision was taken to ensure that students would not suffer harm or prejudice during the first quarter of the academic cycle.

The affidavit stated that since the Act is not being applied to the academic year 2025–26, special measures were required to ensure that any fee collected after the Act came into force would be fixed or approved under its provisions. As a one-time measure, a special timeline was provided to facilitate the fixing or approval of fees for a block of three academic years beginning 2026–27, so that no fee other than that fixed or approved under the Act is collected. It added that had the Act been applied to 2025–26, an exercise to fix or approve fees under the Act would first have been undertaken for that year.

The DoE further submitted that it was not feasible to depart from the timeline prescribed under the February 1 notification, as entry-level admissions are required to conclude by March 19.

It contended that any stay of the notification would effectively shield schools from regulation and allow them to continue levying excessive fees in the upcoming academic year.

The DoE also stated that more than 85% of schools in Delhi have already constituted their SLFRCs, and that only those institutions charging excessively high fees have challenged the constitutional validity of the Act and the February 1 notification.