The Supreme Court on Monday raised questions over the timing of the Delhi government’s enforcement of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, remarking that its implementation amid an ongoing academic year appeared “confused” and potentially unworkable.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing a batch of petitions filed by associations of private unaided schools challenging the constitutionality and practical enforcement of the 2025 Act and its accompanying rules.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the method of implementing the new regulatory regime was contrary to the legislative scheme itself. He argued that rolling out such sweeping changes mid-session without sufficient transitional provisions would disrupt the functioning of schools.
While the apex court declined to stay the law at this stage, it cautioned that the Delhi government must ensure that its implementation aligns with the statutory timelines and does not result in disorder during the academic session. “There seems to be some confusion,” the bench observed, referring to the hurried manner of enforcement.
The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 introduces a structured framework for fee regulation in private unaided schools in the national capital. It prohibits capitation fees, mandates prior approval for any fee hike, and lays out clear categories of permissible charges and mandatory disclosures.
The legislation also envisages the constitution of Fee Regulation Committees for each school to scrutinize proposed fee structures and ensure compliance with prescribed norms.
The Delhi High Court had earlier refused to stay the January 8 notification directing schools to constitute these fee regulation committees. However, it extended the deadline for forming the panels from January 10 to January 20, and the deadline for submitting the proposed fee structure from January 25 to February 5.
The petitions before the Supreme Court primarily argue that the law and its rules impose an excessive administrative burden, interfere with autonomy of unaided schools, and risk financial disruption mid-academic year.
The matter is expected to come up for further hearing after the committees begin functioning and initial compliance timelines elapse.
