May take to streets, challenge ruling: Parents after Delhi HC allows private schools to hike fees without government nod

“If such safeguards are weakened, even provisions like EWS (economically weaker section) freeship and social balance in schools may eventually come under threat,” he said.

The clause originates from allotment terms imposed by agencies such as the Delhi Development Authority when granting institutional land to private schools at concessional rates. These conditions have deterred private schools from raising tuition fees without prior approval from the DoE.

The order comes against the backdrop of the long-running dispute in the Capital over alleged arbitrary hikes by private schools, which have repeatedly triggered protests by parents. The controversy had also pushed the government to bring in the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, which provides for school-level fee regulation committees, parent representation and district-level appellate panels to examine fee disputes.

However, the rollout of the committee-based mechanism for the 2026-27 academic session was deferred amid legal challenges earlier this year, with schools allowed by the Delhi High Court to collect the same fees as the previous academic year until fees are fixed or approved under the new law.

Some representatives said Friday’s ruling has added to the uncertainty even as several families are already struggling with ongoing fee disputes.

Aparajita Rai, President of Delhi Parents’ Association, said the ruling has left parents with limited to no remedies unless the DoE puts in place a clear and time-bound mechanism for examining fee proposals, auditing school accounts and acting against violations.  “When the court itself is ordering against parents, it is making parents lose hope,” Rai said. “The DoE has failed to place proper arguments. The order cannot go against a division bench judgment,” she said.

Parents also raised concerns over whether mere submission of a proposed fee structure to the DoE would be sufficient to prevent profiteering or misuse of funds. Mattey alleged that schools have in the past overcharged under earmarked levies, misused development fees and diverted funds for non-educational purposes. “Mere informing the DoE is not sufficient for equitable education. If this order prevails, schools may go from charging Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh in a few years,” Mattey said, adding that parents were considering a legal challenge and protests.

Mahesh Mishra, a social worker whose child also studies in DPS Dwarka, said “.. It is the parents and students who are ultimately bearing the consequences of a failed system. This rising arbitrariness in fee structures of private schools in Delhi is a direct result of a systemic failure.”

He added that parents left with no option “but to take to the streets to safeguard rights”. “This has eroded the trust among parents,” he said. “If the root cause of the problem is administrative failure, is it sufficient to once again place responsibility on the same system that has already failed?” he said.

In its order, Justice Anup Bhambhani set aside DoE orders rejecting fee-hike proposals submitted by private schools, holding that the department’s insistence on prior approval at the beginning of an academic session was legally unsustainable. The court said the DoE could regulate fees to prevent profiteering, commercialisation or capitation fees, but could not micro-manage the finances of private unaided schools.

The court also said that no school would be allowed to demand or recover arrears of fees or other charges retrospectively for past academic sessions. While allowing the fee hike from April 2027, it noted that permitting schools to recover arrears for earlier years would place an “inordinate and unacceptable burden” on parents and students.

The petitions before the court were filed by several private schools, some dating back to 2017. The schools had challenged DoE orders rejecting their fee-hike proposals and argued that repeated refusal by the department had affected their financial autonomy, development and institutional growth.