Minority-run unaided schools in Delhi have mounted a legal challenge against a new state law regulating school fees, contending it severely undermines their constitutional right to self-governance. The Delhi High Court, for the second consecutive day, has declined to issue an immediate stay on the implementation of the contentious legislation.
Constitutional Autonomy Under Threat, Argue Schools
The bone of contention is the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which came into effect recently. Following petitions from private unaided schools, minority institutions have now moved the High Court. Their primary argument is that the law infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
During hearings on Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard multiple petitions from these schools but refused to grant a stay on the Act. This decision came a day after the Delhi Education department, responding to earlier petitions, agreed to extend a key deadline. The formation of the mandatory School-level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) now has a new deadline of January 20, pushed back from the original date of January 10.
Key Points of Contention in the New Law
The schools have pinpointed several provisions they find particularly egregious. A major issue is the composition of the 11-member SLFRC. The law mandates that the committee include nine members who are effectively 'outsiders' to the school management: three teachers, five parents, and one nominee from the Directorate of Education (DoE).
Representing the schools, Senior Advocate Romy Chacko argued that this structure "amounts to taking away management’s right to fix the fee." He emphasized that under Article 30, the right to determine fees is a core administrative function. "Any statutory committee dealing with administration of a minority school cannot have outsiders," Chacko asserted before the bench.
He further criticized the requirement for unanimous agreement among all SLFRC members for any proposed fee hike. Comparing it to the United Nations Security Council, Chacko stated, "every member has right to veto," meaning a single dissenting member can block a proposal entirely.
Financial Burdens and Extreme Penalties
The schools also challenged other clauses. One provision makes the fee approved by the SLFRC binding for three academic years. They argue this forces them to project and incorporate potential fee enhancements for the third year right from the first year, which could place an "extreme financial burden on parents" immediately.
Perhaps the most alarming provision for the institutions is the law's enforcement mechanism. It empowers the DoE to take drastic steps against non-compliant schools, including attachment and sale of the school's movable or immovable property, taking possession of the school, and selling its assets. The petitioners contend that such powers represent a direct violation of their right to administer the institution.
The schools' legal argument rests heavily on Supreme Court precedents that uphold the autonomy of minority institutions. They quoted judicial rulings stating that management must be "free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution" according to their vision for serving the community's interests.
With the High Court's refusal to stay the law, the legal battle is set to continue. The outcome will have significant implications for the operational and financial autonomy of minority educational institutions not just in Delhi, but potentially across India, setting a crucial precedent for the interplay between state regulation and constitutional protections.
