The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled last week that a 13-year-old school student could not be expelled for non-payment of fees, especially since the child fell within the age limits of compulsory education.
A bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode quashed the transfer certificate (TC) issued by the private school after the Class 7 student failed to pay Rs 23,900 in fees. The court also directed that the student be promptly readmitted.
The ruling turns on how the right to education interacts with state fee regulation laws. Here is what to know.
The legal framework rests on two statutes and one constitutional provision.
Article 21-A of the Constitution guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14. This guarantee is realised by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Section 3(1) of the act provides that every child in this age group “shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education.”
Section 16 further stipulates that “No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.”
Separately, the Maharashtra Education Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011, governs how private unaided schools may recover fees. The central provision debated regarding the uncollected fees is Section 3A, which was inserted into the Act and permits schools to charge for delayed payment of fees or penal interest for non-payment.
The central issue before the court was whether this power to impose financial penalties can be interpreted as grounds for a school to remove a student.
The dispute before the court
The student had been admitted to Father Agnes School in Class 6 in 2023-2024 and was promoted to Class 7 in 2024-2025.
During this period, her father lodged complaints before authorities alleging that the school was “engaged in profiteering and exploitation of the children, more particularly, by fixing the fee arbitrarily and by not using NCERT books.”
The school denied the allegations. It contended that the father was seeking “political mileage”, had filed incorrect complaints, and even issued a “threat to self-immolate along with his daughter with petrol”. It also stated that fees for Classes 6 & 7, amounting to Rs. 23,900, had not been paid.
In March 2025, the school issued a notice stating that if the dues were not cleared within 3 days, a transfer certificate would follow. The TC was issued.
The father claimed that he attempted to pay the fee, but was “wrongfully and forcibly denied entry into the school premises”.
The school advanced two principal arguments—the RTE Act did not apply to it because it was an unaided minority institution affiliated to the CBSE, and the fee regulation law permitted recovery measures for non-payment.
How the court interpreted the law
On the applicability of the RTE Act, the school argued that as an unaided minority institute affiliated to CBSE, it was outside the Act’s framework. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it submitted that minority unaided institutions retain administrative autonomy and cannot be compelled to act under the RTE regime.
The HC tested that claim against the school’s own regulatory record.
It noted that in 2007, the Maharashtra government had issued a No Objection Certificate permitting the school to run a CBSE section, on the condition that it “shall abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by the government of Maharashtra.” It also examined an April 2022 approval letter indicating that “the provisions of the Act of 2009 are made applicable” to the management.
The school contended that the 2022 approval was obtained “under force”. The court recorded that it has not been challenged in any proceeding. Reading the two communications together, the bench held that the management could not accept the benefit of affiliation while disclaiming the obligations attached to it.
Calling the stand “a striking example of unfairness and arbitrary action”, the management, the court said, “cannot blow both hot and cold”.
Once the RTE Act was held applicable, Section 16 became decisive. The student was 13. The court noted that the act applies to every child between the ages of 6 and 14, not just students admitted under the RTE category. This safeguard is age-based.
On fee recovery, the court held that Section 3A of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act 2011 permitted financial penalties, not expulsion.
The order separates the issue of recovery of dues from the continuation of schooling. Schools may recover fees in accordance with the statute; they cannot remove a child from elementary education as a method of enforcement.
The school advanced two principal arguments—the RTE Act did not apply to it because it was an unaided minority institution affiliated to the CBSE, and the fee regulation law permitted recovery measures for non-payment. 
Share
