3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 9, 2026 10:52 AM IST
They argue that parents might act unpredictably or unfairly, rejecting necessary expenses for school maintenance, growth, or new facilities, which could harm the school’s functioning and development.
A month after the Delhi government brought into effect the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, private schools have approached the Delhi High Court challenging its constitutional validity and seeking to have it struck down. The schools have based their challenge on three broad grounds, raising concerns about conflicts with existing laws, interference in their autonomy, the law’s tilt in favour of parents, and restrictions on how they handle fee-related matters.
Delhi’s Private schools have argued that fees are already regulated under an existing law, the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSEAR), and its rules. They claim that the new law passed by the Delhi Legislative Assembly contradicts this earlier Act. For instance, the private schools have pointed out that the new law changes who controls school fee decisions by taking power away from school management and giving it mainly to parents and teachers, which schools say conflicts with the older law.
They have said that under DSEAR, a 21-member School Management Committee (13 management, 1 parent, 2 teachers, officials) decided fees, but the new law shifts power to the committee dominated by parents (5 parents, 3 teachers, 1 management).
The second ground relates to non-payment of fees. The schools have highlighted that while DSEAR allows schools to strike off the name of a ward for non-payment of fees, the new act prohibits any such action, and further threatens schools with penalties in case of any coercive action against students.
The schools argue that the new law unfairly interferes with how private schools are run, thereby violating the “fundamental and constitutional rights of the management of private schools”.
They argue that the new allows parents (who use the school’s services) to have too much control over decisions that should be made by the schools. “….a consumer of a service cannot be the decision-maker, that too, in overwhelming precedence to the wisdom and decision-making power of the service-provider itself,” the plea states.
They have also argued that the certain parameters and factors of deciding the fees under the new law are incomplete and weaker, as it does not follow the guidelines earlier set by the Supreme Court and DSEAER – such as the new law imposing penalties for violation of its provisions. As per the schools, the private schools’ fundamental rights and autonomy ensures that they do not have any liability or obligation to take any prior approval of the DOE before increasing fees for new academic sessions, which the new law does away with.
Story continues below this ad
The schools say the new law, by giving parents the deciding say in multi-level fee committees and requiring unanimous approval, is likely to “create a perennial & never-ending confrontation between the Management of a School and the parents.”The schools have also pointed out that, unlike the new law, earlier rules consciously excluded parents from deciding fees and limited the education department’s role to only preventing profiteering, rather than controlling fee fixation.The schools have argued it is not logical to let parents, who have to pay the fees, decide on fee increases.
They argue that parents might act unpredictably or unfairly, rejecting necessary expenses for school maintenance, growth, or new facilities, which could harm the school’s functioning and development.
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
