Delhi's ordinance to raise school fees is a preposterous move
The Delhi government recently issued a circular, which requires private unaided schools that have been granted land by government entities to obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) before raising their fees for the 2024-25 academic year.
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta warned of action against private schools that have increased fees arbitrarily. She said: ... no school has any right to harass parents and children. They have no right to threaten children and hike fees abnormally. ….'
It was strongly opposed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bhardwaj, who alleged that the state government had succumbed to pressure from private school lobbies by introducing a school fee ordinance without legislative oversight or public consultation.
The Congress also opposed the 'ordinance' with the party's Delhi unit chief Devender Yadav blaming the BJP's decision 'to approve the ordinance without consulting stakeholders' as 'undemocratic' as it betrayed and stifled the voice of lakhs of students and their parents, 'who have been protesting against the arbitrary fee hike by private schools for months'.
In a subsequent development many parents challenged the circular in the Delhi High Court. The circular has led to confusion and worries among parents, as many private schools have used these orders to almost double the tuition fees. The parents' group said that the High Court, by allowing such fee hikes without approval from the DoE, has gone against its own earlier decisions and also against the Supreme Court's past directions. The petitioners pointed out that allowing such fee increases without proper checks could lead to further misuse of power by private schools.
Earlier judgments of SC:
The Supreme Court had earlier this month criticised private schools in Delhi for hiking fees without prior government approval, particularly targeting schools constructed on government-allotted land, even as they were legally obligated to follow specific regulatory conditions.
The SC noticed a violation of conditions and criticised that many elite private schools in Delhi operate on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) at concessional rates. A condition of the lease mandates that these schools obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE) before increasing tuition or any other fees. The apex court observed that schools violated this lease condition by hiking fees unilaterally. It held that the state government should be accountable and transparent.
In some other previous judgments (like Modern School v. Union of India, 2004), the SC held that education is not a commercial activity and fee structures must be reasonable. It reiterated that school fees should not become an economic barrier that undermines the Right to Education under Article 21A.
Thus, the observations reinforce the Delhi government's authority to regulate private school fees, particularly those on public land. It also legitimises audits and penalties imposed by the Delhi Directorate of Education on non-compliant schools. Several schools may be required to refund excess fees and face restrictions on future hikes. The Supreme Court criticised schools that hike fees without government approval, especially when they occupy government-allotted land.
Earlier in April, the government issued show-cause notices to 11 schools and initiated audits after uncovering widespread fee-hike abuses.
Upholding Right to Education:
Thus, the ordinary students now have legal recourse against arbitrary hikes, and their selection process may favour uninformed participants. While school representatives dominate decisions, the Delhi government claims penalties and committees could improve accountability and transparent fee structures. It is a democratic deficit as the ordinance bypassed legislative debate and public consultation, raising concerns about legitimacy and inclusivity. Fee hikes that occurred between April 1 and enforcement of the ordinance may remain unaddressed, leaving parents in limbo.
Notice to the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court has rightly issued notice to the Directorate of Education, the Delhi government, and the Action Committee for Unaided Recognised Private Schools regarding a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court. Unfortunately, this 'order' permitted private schools situated on government land to increase tuition fees without prior approval from the DOE.
Will this 'order' order the possibility of education? It directly disturbs 'law and order'. The government should wait for the 'order'. This notice came in response to a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's April 2024 decisions, which allowed private schools built on government land in Delhi to increase their tuition fees without taking prior approval from the DoE.
A vacation bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, took up the hearing. The bench was responding to a petition filed by the Naya Samaj Parents Association, a group representing parents of students studying in private schools.
The Supreme Court on May 29 issued notice to the Delhi Director of Education in a plea challenging the order of the Delhi High Court that allowed the increase of fees by private unaided schools on government lands.
Delhi govt ordinance promulgated:
The state cabinet on June 11 approved the issue of the ordinance aimed at regulating the fee structure of private schools in the national capital. The ordinance, titled the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025, was ready to be forwarded to the President through the office of the Lieutenant-Governor for formal assent. Once enacted, it will operate retrospectively from April 1, 2025.
Instead of empowering the common man, the ordinance 'empowers' the government, preferring to impose fines of up to ₹10 lakh per school for violating fee norms and to revoke a school's ability to propose further fee hikes.
The question is whether this 'hurried' ordinance will regulate arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in the national capital. Will it indeed give major relief to lakhs of students studying in private schools and their parents in the city?
Why the ordinance with a retrospective effect?
The ordinance says that schools found charging fees more than the permitted limit will be mandated to reverse the hike and refund the surplus amount within 20 working days. Failure to do so will lead to escalating financial penalties. Specifically, the fine will double if the delay crosses 20 working days, triple after 40 days, and continue to rise with every 20-day interval.
It was further added that 'for a first violation, the ordinance prescribes a monetary penalty ranging between ₹one lakh and ₹five lakh. In the event of repeated non-compliance, the fine may increase to between ₹two lakh and ₹10 lakh, depending on the severity and frequency of the offence. The ordinance claimed that it is designed to bring greater transparency and fairness to the fee structures adopted by private schools and provide relief to parents burdened by abrupt and arbitrary fee hikes.
The Delhi and other states, too, must ensure that fee committees are transparent, diverse, and balanced school and parent representation. Violations are penalized, and past arbitrary fee hikes (April–June 2025) are properly redressed, and Legislative procedures and public consultations are honored in future amendments or laws. It's a case of misusing the power of promulgation of an ordinance and, in essence, violence against the right to education, unfortunately.
(The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Land dispute case: Telangana HC reserves order on A Revanth's plea to quash 2016 FIR; order reserved till July 18
HYDERABAD: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana high court on Friday reserved orders to July 18 on a plea filed by former Congress MP and chief minister A Revanth Reddy seeking quashing of a 2016 FIR registered against him at the Gachibowli police station. The case was filed based on a complaint by N Peddi Raju, president of the Razole Constituency SC Cooperative Housing Society, alleging trespass and caste-based abuse during a land dispute in Gopanapalli, Rangareddy district. The matter is pending before a special court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the FIR, Peddi Raju claimed Revanth's brother Kondal Reddy and one E Laxmaiah forcibly entered around two acres of land claimed by the society, demolished a compound wall and other structures, and abused him in the name of caste-allegedly at Revanth's behest. The 2019 chargesheet noted that though Raju claimed purchase of land for the society, the sellers lacked clear title. Meanwhile, Kondal Reddy claimed to have purchased 31 acres in the same survey number in 2005, registered in his name. The chargesheet concluded that the accused trespassed into land in possession of the society and carried out the demolition. Counsel Nimma Narayana, appearing for Peddi Raju, argued: "Though the chargesheet was filed five years ago, charges have not been framed, and crucial provisions under the Atrocities Act were left out." He reiterated that Kondal Reddy used caste abuse, allegedly on Revanth's instructions. The judge reserved her orders and posted the case to July 18.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
‘We'll fix what 11 years of AAP rule broke': Rekha Gupta
In the inaugural episode of The Hindu Mind series, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta speaks candidly about her unexpected appointment, the challenges of governing India's capital, and what she plans to do about the city's long-standing issues. From fixing the drainage system and reforming excise policies to cleaning the Yamuna and improving government schools, CM Gupta lays out her roadmap for Delhi's future. Presentation: Nistula Hebbar Video: Vishnoo Jotshi, Tayyab Hussain S M, Aniket Singh Chauhan & Jude Francis Weston Production: Shikha Kumari A
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Kolkata HC stays Didi's relief to SSC staff sacked by SC
Mamata Banerjee KOLKATA: Calcutta HC Friday stayed till Sept 26 WB govt's interim relief for Group-C and Group-D employees of state-run schools who lost their jobs following a Supreme Court order on April 3. The state had announced monthly interim relief of Rs 25,000 for Group-C employees and Rs 20,000 for Group-D staff. Another section of candidates, who were waitlisted, moved HC for a stay on the scheme, arguing it "frustrated" the SC order. Justice Amrita Sinha held that the people whose jobs were terminated by the SC order could not be provided such support after the apex court had decided the issue of illegal appointments conclusively and opined that the appointments were a result of "fraud". Getting refund of money already disbursed to the beneficiaries would be a problem if the scheme was found to be in violation of law after the final hearing on a state review petition, she reasoned. HC also took note of the fact that the state welfare scheme was announced for a particular group who would not be doing any work. "Paying persons gratuitously, who are not serving the state but are either sitting at home or are engaged elsewhere, does not appeal to the court," Justice Sinha held. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pennsylvania: These Walk In Tubs Are Cheap (See Prices) Walk In Tub Discounts Learn More Undo HC stressed that the state had applied a "pick and choose" method for determining the beneficiaries of the welfare scheme. "There are two sets of candidates. One set comprises appointed candidates whose jobs were terminated and the other waitlisted candidates. Both sets are jobless now," Justice Sinha said, holding that the scheme for a particular group "intended to provide succour to the tainted terminated candidates". Justice Sinha acknowledged the state's legislative competence to draft a welfare scheme but said it should apply equally. "Whether it is proper for the state to create a class of favoured candidates out of a bigger class of unemployed candidates is a matter to be decided after hearing (all) parties."
