A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court was hearing a petition filed by parents whose children were removed from the rolls of the Delhi Public School in Dwarka due to non-payment of the increased fee. The parents argued that the school had struck off the names of students/wards from the rolls on account of non payment of the hiked fee. They further argued that the fee had been raised without the approval of Directorate of Education (DoE).
The parents requested immediate restoration of their children’s admission and a direction to the school to only charge the approved fee for the academic year. The plea also sought the Court’s direction to cancel the school’s land allotment and take over its administration under the law.
The Court directed that the students’ names be reinstated on the school rolls, provided the parents deposit 50 percent of the increased school fee for the 2024-25 academic year. Over 20 students of the school were not being allowed inside their classrooms after summer vacation ended on July 1.
On April 29, the Delhi High Court had stayed the order of the DoE, which directed private unaided schools on government-allotted land to first seek its approval to hike fees. The Court said the decision is “objectionable” and cannot be allowed. Justice C Hari Shankar said that as stated in earlier judicial decisions, a non-aided recognized private school does not need to take prior approval of the DoE before increasing its fees, even if it is on allotted land and hence schools cannot be pushed into litigation on this issue.
In that order, the DoE had directed all heads of schools/managers of private recognised, unaided schools—which were functioning on allotted land on the condition of obtaining prior approval to hike fees—to submit any such proposal by April 15 for fee hike for the academic session 2024-25. It said that if no such proposal is received from the school, the fee will not be increased. Any complaint in this regard will be taken seriously and the school will be held accountable for action under legal provisions.
On May 2, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to the DoE to ensure that a school does not realise a sum of Rs 2,000 per month in lieu of providing air-conditioning facility to the students in the classrooms. It was stated before the High Court that the obligation to provide air-conditioning facility to the students rests with the school management and this facility should be provided by the school from its own funds and resources. It was also claimed that the levy of this charge on the students was contrary to Rule 154 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
“In view of the admission of the petitioner that the facility of air-conditioning is being provided to the students in the classrooms, prima facie, there is no irregularity in the charge levied by the school. The costs of air-conditioning services provided to the children in the school have to be borne by the parents as it is a facility provided to the children and is no different from the other charges such as lab fee and smart class fee levied. The parents while selecting the school have to be mindful of the facilities and the cost of the facilities provided to the children in the school. The financial burden of providing such facilities cannot be fastened on the school management alone,” the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora had observed.
In another important decision given on January 2023, the Delhi High Court had said that education is an important right, which is “included under the right to life” and a child cannot be prevented from studying in school or appearing in the examination in the middle of the academic session on the ground that his fees had not been paid. The petition was from a class 10 student of a private unaided school, whose name was removed from the list due to non-payment of fees and a request was made to allow him to appear in the upcoming CBSE board examinations.
While hearing the case, Justice Mini Pushkarna had said that depriving a student from appearing in the examination, especially the board examination, would be a violation of his rights equal to right to life. The Court directed that the student should be allowed to appear in the board examination. It also said that it is not fair to deprive the student from appearing in the examination due to non-payment of fees.
In December 2022, the Delhi High Court had directed the DOE, Delhi, to ensure that the right to education Act was implemented in letter and spirit with EWS representation. A single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the children belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections have not been able to exercise their right to get admission in private schools.
The bench agreed that it was time that the judiciary stepped in and made these people avail their rights. The judge said that it was pertinent to exercise powers under 226 to direct the DoE to ensure people of weaker sections get representation in schools. The Court further said this while it was dealing with petitions filed by 39 students and their parents who were seeking admission to private schools under the EWS quota. The Court ordered that all schools have to ensure that provisions of RTE are followed. It also said that EWS students shall not be denied admission or treated badly. The Court added that the DoE shall take strict action against erring schools. In exceptional circumstances, exemption can be granted to a school, but the DOE shall ascertain that the reasons are bona fide.
The schools, on their part, raised the issue of fraud that is prevalent and being committed by the parents of students seeking admission, misrepresenting themselves as belonging to weaker sections by forging documents and using other unscrupulous means. The Court clarified that mere suspicion or doubt on the credentials of the candidate on the basis of fact-finding exercise carried out cannot be the ground for denying admission. The Court concluded by saying that the schools as such, in the matters of admission under the Act/Rules, cannot bestow upon themselves the roles of the complainant, advocate as well as the adjudicator in such cases.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau