New fee regulation law curtails autonomy: Delhi’s minority schools to HC; court refuses stay
Minority unaided schools in Delhi have challenged the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, arguing that it violates their constitutional autonomy, but the High Court has declined to stay the law for the second day in a row.
Minority schools in Delhi have moved the High Court against the new fee regulation law, saying it infringes their constitutional right to manage their institutions. (File Photo)
After private unaided schools, minority schools in the Capital have challenged the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which came into effect last month, primarily on the ground that it violates the autonomy guaranteed to the minority institutions under the Constitution. The High Court, however, yet again refused to stay the law, as it heard a bunch of petitions by the minority schools on Friday.
On Thursday, in response to a batch of petitions filed by the schools challenging the constitutional validity of the new school fee regulation law in the High Court, the Delhi Education department had agreed to extend the deadline for constituting the School-level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) to January 20, instead of the earlier deadline of January 10.
The minority schools on Friday in their plea highlighted that the new law stipulates the constitution of 11-member SLFRC in such a manner that it consists of nine ‘outsiders’ — three teachers, five parents and one Directorate of Education (DoE) nominee. This “amounts to taking away management’s right to fix the fee”, they told the court. Senior advocate Romy Chacko, appearing on behalf of the schools, argued that under Article 30 of the Constitution, one of the basic rights minority schools have is the right to fix the fee. “Any statutory committee dealing with administration of a minority school cannot have outsiders,” he said .
Adding that the law mandates unanimous agreement of all SLFRC members for the proposed fee, with even a single member’s dissent leading to a veto over the proposal, Chacko told the division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, “It is like the United Nations Security Council… every member has right to veto.”
Relying on judicial precedents set by the Supreme Court on the extent of rights of the managements of minority schools, the schools pointed out that the management of minority schools “must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution as they think fit and in accordance with their ideas as to how interest of the community and the institution will be best served”.
The schools have contended that the source of income for all unaided schools is the fee provided by the students which is used by the schools to meet the expenses, including salaries and other expenses incurred by the school, and “if it does not have the freedom to decide the fee structure of the school”, the management will not be able to administer the school.
Further, the minority schools have challenged the provision of the law which stipulates that the fee approved by the SLFRC is binding on the school for three academic years. Underlining that the school management will have to take into account and include the enhancement of the fee which may be applicable in the third year, payable from the first year itself, the have flagged that this may impose extreme financial burden on parents with effect from the first year itself.” This too, according to the schools, “completely curtails the autonomy of the schools”.
Story continues below this ad
The minority schools have also highlighted that the new law empowers DOE to take extreme steps against schools, including attachment and sale of movable or immovable property of school management, take possession of school property and to sell the same. This, the minority schools have contended, violates their right to administer, under Article 30.
Eariler on Thursday, private schools challenged the law in the High Court, raising concerns about interference in their autonomy, the law’s tilt in favour of parents, and restrictions on how they handle fee-related matters.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
