The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Directorate of Education (DoE) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) on a batch of petitions filed by several minority educational institutions challenging the constitutional validity of a new law that mandates government approval for fee hikes in private schools.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the DoE and LG to file their responses within six weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on March 12.
The petitions contest the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, and the corresponding rules, which introduce a three-tier committee mechanism to regulate private school fee hikes. According to the new law, all private unaided schools—including minority institutions—must get any proposed fee increase approved by a School Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC), followed by further scrutiny at the district and government levels, if necessary.
The court also extended the deadline for schools to constitute SLFRCs from January 10 to January 20, and pushed the date for submitting proposed fees from January 25 to February 5.
Under the Act, each private school is required to form an SLFRC comprising representatives of the school management, the principal, three teachers, five parents, and a nominee from the DoE. These members are to be selected by lottery in the presence of observers to ensure transparency. The SLFRC is expected to decide on any fee proposal within 30 days of submission.
The law also provides for an appellate mechanism at the district level to hear disputes arising out of fee regulation decisions.
The petitioners, represented by various minority-run schools, have argued that the Act infringes upon their fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which protects the autonomy of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
They submitted that any statutory committee influencing fee decisions effectively interferes with the administrative autonomy of minority institutions. “No prior permission of the state can be insisted for the exercise of right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution,” the petitioners asserted, claiming that including “outsiders” like DoE nominees or parent representatives in administrative decisions violates constitutional protections.
Senior advocate S.V. Raju, appearing for the Directorate of Education, defended the legislation and argued that it does not violate Article 30. Citing various Supreme Court precedents, Raju maintained that while minority institutions enjoy protection under Article 30, the State is empowered to impose regulatory measures in the interest of transparency and accountability.
On Thursday, the court had passed a similar order in a separate batch of petitions filed by other private schools, both minority and non-minority.
With the law set to impact fee structures from the current academic session, the outcome of the constitutional challenge is likely to have significant implications for both school administrations and parents. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 12.
