New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Thursday gave the green light for the constitution of school-level committees that will regulate fee hikes, refusing to stay a Delhi government notification directing the same for the 2025-26 academic session. The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which essentially mandates government approval for increasing fees of private schools.
The petitions have been filed by a number of private schools in the capital, which have opposed the new law on grounds that it tampers with their autonomy under the guise of regulating fees to prevent commercialisation of education. The DSE law was passed in August last year in a bid to bring in more transparency amid fervent protests by parents over arbitrary fee hikes.
A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia refused to stay the law, but at the same time directed the Delhi government to file its reply to the private schools’ petitions. It has also issued notices to the Centre and the Directorate of Education. The matter will next be heard on 12 March.
The court also extended the deadline for setting up of the 10-member fee committees, from 10 January to 20 January.
On Thursday, the court clubbed seven pleas filed by private school associations including Public Schools on Private Lands Society, the Delhi Public School Society, and others.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented the petitioner private schools, argued that constituting such fee committees across all schools in such a short period of time would lead to chaos.
ThePrint explains what’s in the DSE law, why private schools are opposing it in court, who will be part of these fee regulation committees and how they will function:
Who will be on these fee regulation committees?
Under Section 4 of the DSE Act, the 10-member fee regulation committee will comprise school management officials, parents and teachers. The principal will be the secretary, and the panel will be chaired by another representative of the school management. Five parent representatives and three teachers will be members, picked up through a lottery system. An observer nominated by the Directorate of Education will be present at all committee meetings.
Under the new fee regulation law, once the ‘School Level Fee Regulation Committee’ as it is called, is set up, the school management will submit its fee plan for a block of three academic years. The committee will have the authority to decide the fee amount, but it cannot be more than what is proposed by the management.
Fee determination will be based on factors outlined in the law, such as location of the school, infrastructure and education standards. In case a dispute arises over the fee fixation, parents can approach a district fee appellate authority.
What does the 2025 Act say?
The DSE Act was formally notified less than a month ago, on 10 December, with the aim to bring about transparency in the matter of fixation, regulation and collection of fee by schools in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and to supplement the provisions of the erstwhile 1973 Act.
The 2025 law seeks to curb the commercialisation of education and profiteering by educational institutions, as envisaged by the National Policy on Education (NEP) 2020.
Section 3 of the Act says that “no school by itself or through any other means on its behalf shall collect any fee in excess of the fee fixed or approved under this Act”.
Significantly, the law also has provisions for setting up a committee for the purpose of verifying schools’ accounts, and directing refunds of any excess fee charged.
Under the 2025 law, schools were defined to include “private unaided pre-primary school, primary school, school imparting elementary education, secondary school, higher secondary school, senior secondary school, recognised or unrecognised by the Government or managed by any management or affiliated to any Indian or foreign course or Board, including the schools run by minority educational institutions and schools given land at concessional rates by government agencies”.
Why is the law being challenged?
The present case includes pleas filed by private school associations like Justice for All, Public Schools on Private Land Society and others. They argue that the DSE law essentially usurps the autonomy of private unaided educational institutes—a right which has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings like the 2002 TMA Pai Foundation case.
The petition argues that the 2025 statute introduces a “multi-tiered, invasive and bureaucratic mechanism” for deciding the fee, including the mandatory constitution of the school-level committees. The plea also highlights the presence of a district fee appellate committee, which will adjudicate disputes that pop up between parents and management.
Such a framework, the plea argues, will erode the administrative and financial autonomy of private unaided schools. In doing so, it challenges Sections 3-8 of the Act, which bar private schools from increasing their fee without the government’s nod, deal with fee regulation and the constitution of the fee committees, along with the factors outlined for hiking fee, etc.
The plea also challenges Sections 11, 12 and 17, which relate to special powers of the Director of Education, penalties, and bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, respectively.
It argues that these provisions are unreasonable, and impose disproportionate restrictions, which violate the fundamental rights of these schools, under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and (g), which relate to the fundamental rights to equality; freedom to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies; and to carry out any trade or profession.
Significantly, the plea argues that the new 2025 law violates the provisions of its 1973 parent legislation—name it—by creating a parallel and conflicting regulatory regime that “supplants, rather than supplements” the existing legal framework.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Could’ve been resolved if not for ‘disgruntled elements’. What Madras HC said on lamp lighting row