HC says DoE’s nod not needed for fee hike at beginning of session

New Delhi: Reiterating that law doesn’t require a school to obtain prior permission of Directorate of Education for increasing its fee at the start of an academic session, Delhi High Court on Friday quashed DoE's several circulars on fee hike request by over a hundred schools."In the circumstances, while this court is unable to offer full redressal to both the parents and the schools, it appears that the equitable option would be to direct that the fee increase last proposed by various schools in their respective statements of fee filed with DoE would apply but only from the next academic session beginning April 2027,” Justice Anup J Bhambhani directed, disposing of a batch of petitions filed by schools against DoE.“No school shall demand or recover from any parent or student any arrears of fee or other charges retrospectively for the past academic sessions,” the court clarified. The high court said it was due to the “obduracy of DoE to act in excess of its authority, and in disregard of the law laid down by Supreme Court as well as in several pronouncements of this court” that both parents and schools were in an unenviable position.The court was clear that under Section 17(3) of Delhi School Education Act, no prior permission or sanction was required by a private, unaided, recognised school to increase its fee at the start of an academic session.“Only statutory obligation upon a school is that it must file its statement of proposed fee with DoE prior to commencement of an academic session,” the court said, adding that a prior approval is needed only if a fee hike is proposed during an ongoing session.In a 120-page order, Justice Bhambhani stressed that “mere availability of surplus funds with a private, unaided, recognised school, howsoever large, cannot be the sole basis for DoE to infer that the school is indulging in commercialisation or profiteering, and to thereby object to fee hike by a school”.The court said the “aspect of commercialisation or profiteering can only be examined and determined by DoE after conducting a full-dressed financial audit of a school by the prescribed authority based on duly audited financial and other returns that a school files before DoE”.The high court held there was “no distinction” between a private, unaided, recognised school with a "land clause" and one without a "land clause" as far as DoE’s role and powers were concerned. If an audit finds that a school is indulging in profiteering or commercialisation, DoE may inform the land-owning/land-administering agency, which may take action as per the lease, it noted, adding that such schools enjoy “financial autonomy, and it is not for DoE to dictate or micro-manage how the fiscal affairs of a school are to be conducted.