In the high-decibel case between Delhi's DPS Dwarka and some parents, the Delhi High Court has ruled that students who were removed from enrolment due to unpaid increased fees, be permitted to resume attending classes, contingent upon the payment of a portion of the raised fees.
The ruling came after a hearing on May 29. This instruction was issued by Justice Vikas Mahajan during the hearing of a petition filed by more than 100 parents, requiring the students' reinstatement with the payment of 50% of the increased fees for the academic years starting from 2024–25.
This ruling emerges amid ongoing disputes regarding fee hikes and subsequent expulsions, with parents asserting that there have been breaches of land allotment conditions and failures to adhere to guidelines set by the Directorate of Education (DoE).
The outcome may have significant implications for the regulation of fees within Delhi's private education sector.
The court's temporary order will remain in place until the final resolution of the writ petition, which coincides with the Delhi government's initiative to introduce new legislation aimed at regulating fee increments in private educational institutions. The conflict initially arose on May 9 when parents were informed via notifications that their children’s names had been removed from the school rolls due to outstanding fees. As per the parents' claims, this action followed the school's decision to raise the monthly fees first to Rs 7,000 and subsequently to Rs 9,000.
Allegations were made by parents that the school resorted to coercive measures for collecting unauthorized fees, including the use of bouncers at the school entrance.
The petition presented to the court accused the school of not complying with land allotment stipulations and repeatedly disregarding directives from the Directorate of Education (DoE). Additionally, parents expressed concerns regarding the validity of the Delhi government’s financial audit of the school, which they deemed inadequate and lacking in transparency. They called for a forensic audit and an investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, insisting that the findings should be publicly disclosed prior to any acceptance of fee increases.
Justice Mahajan remarked that while private unaided schools are allowed to set fees based on anticipated expenses without needing prior approval from the DoE, these fee proposals remain subject to review by the DoE. The court highlighted that the DoE had already disapproved the fee increase for the academic year 2023–24, and although the school contested this ruling, no stay was granted. The interim relief requested by the parents was related to subsequent academic years, including 2024–25 and the current year, 2025–26.
The court determined that, in the absence of a DoE ruling rejecting the fee hike for these academic years, parents are obligated to pay according to the fee statements submitted by the school.
Thus, the court instructed that students be permitted to continue their classes on the condition that 50% of the increased fee is paid, while the full base fee must also be settled. This arrangement will remain effective until the writ petition is concluded. Furthermore, an urgent application was filed by the petitioners, seeking guidance to ensure that the school charges only those fees that have received DoE approval for the academic session 2025–26 and beyond. The court has issued a notice regarding the main writ petition and has scheduled the next hearing for August 28. In a related case, a different bench has reserved its judgment concerning another petition involving 32 students who were also expelled due to fee non-payment.
The dispute over fee increases and expulsions traces back to May 9, when parents received email notifications indicating the removal of their children's names due to alleged non-payment of fees. Parents have indicated that coercive tactics have been employed in recent years to collect unauthorized fees, including the presence of bouncers at school gates.
The plea filed in court accused the institution of breaching land allotment agreements and claimed consistent non-adherence to directives from the Directorate of Education (DoE). Moreover, the parents have challenged the validity of the Delhi government's audit of the school's financial matters, branding it as insufficient and lacking in transparency.
The parents demanded a forensic audit along with an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, insisting that the findings should be made public prior to the acceptance of any fee increase. Justice Mahajan acknowledged that private unaided schools are allowed to establish fees based on projected expenses without needing prior DoE consent; however, he emphasized that these fee statements are ultimately reviewable by the DoE. If the fees are deemed unreasonable or indicative of profiteering, the DoE has the authority to reject the proposed increases and mandate a rollback.
The court noted that the DoE had already declined the fee hike for the academic year 2023–24, and although the school contested this decision, no stay was granted. The court ruled that, without a DoE decision against the fee hike for the upcoming years, parents are required to pay according to the fee statements provided by the school.
Consequently, it ordered that the students be permitted to continue in their respective classes as long as 50% of the increased fee is paid, alongside the full base fee. This legal confrontation occurs alongside the Delhi government's proposal for new legislation aimed at curtailing arbitrary fee increases in private educational establishments. The proposed draft legislation includes establishing fee regulation committees at various levels—school, district, and state—with penalties for coercive actions such as denying students access to classrooms.
The ruling came after a hearing on May 29. This instruction was issued by Justice Vikas Mahajan during the hearing of a petition filed by more than 100 parents, requiring the students' reinstatement with the payment of 50% of the increased fees for the academic years starting from 2024–25.
This ruling emerges amid ongoing disputes regarding fee hikes and subsequent expulsions, with parents asserting that there have been breaches of land allotment conditions and failures to adhere to guidelines set by the Directorate of Education (DoE).
The outcome may have significant implications for the regulation of fees within Delhi's private education sector.
The court's temporary order will remain in place until the final resolution of the writ petition, which coincides with the Delhi government's initiative to introduce new legislation aimed at regulating fee increments in private educational institutions. The conflict initially arose on May 9 when parents were informed via notifications that their children’s names had been removed from the school rolls due to outstanding fees. As per the parents' claims, this action followed the school's decision to raise the monthly fees first to Rs 7,000 and subsequently to Rs 9,000.
Allegations were made by parents that the school resorted to coercive measures for collecting unauthorized fees, including the use of bouncers at the school entrance.
The petition presented to the court accused the school of not complying with land allotment stipulations and repeatedly disregarding directives from the Directorate of Education (DoE). Additionally, parents expressed concerns regarding the validity of the Delhi government’s financial audit of the school, which they deemed inadequate and lacking in transparency. They called for a forensic audit and an investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, insisting that the findings should be publicly disclosed prior to any acceptance of fee increases.
Justice Mahajan remarked that while private unaided schools are allowed to set fees based on anticipated expenses without needing prior approval from the DoE, these fee proposals remain subject to review by the DoE. The court highlighted that the DoE had already disapproved the fee increase for the academic year 2023–24, and although the school contested this ruling, no stay was granted. The interim relief requested by the parents was related to subsequent academic years, including 2024–25 and the current year, 2025–26.
The court determined that, in the absence of a DoE ruling rejecting the fee hike for these academic years, parents are obligated to pay according to the fee statements submitted by the school.
Thus, the court instructed that students be permitted to continue their classes on the condition that 50% of the increased fee is paid, while the full base fee must also be settled. This arrangement will remain effective until the writ petition is concluded. Furthermore, an urgent application was filed by the petitioners, seeking guidance to ensure that the school charges only those fees that have received DoE approval for the academic session 2025–26 and beyond. The court has issued a notice regarding the main writ petition and has scheduled the next hearing for August 28. In a related case, a different bench has reserved its judgment concerning another petition involving 32 students who were also expelled due to fee non-payment.
The dispute over fee increases and expulsions traces back to May 9, when parents received email notifications indicating the removal of their children's names due to alleged non-payment of fees. Parents have indicated that coercive tactics have been employed in recent years to collect unauthorized fees, including the presence of bouncers at school gates.
The plea filed in court accused the institution of breaching land allotment agreements and claimed consistent non-adherence to directives from the Directorate of Education (DoE). Moreover, the parents have challenged the validity of the Delhi government's audit of the school's financial matters, branding it as insufficient and lacking in transparency.
The parents demanded a forensic audit along with an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, insisting that the findings should be made public prior to the acceptance of any fee increase. Justice Mahajan acknowledged that private unaided schools are allowed to establish fees based on projected expenses without needing prior DoE consent; however, he emphasized that these fee statements are ultimately reviewable by the DoE. If the fees are deemed unreasonable or indicative of profiteering, the DoE has the authority to reject the proposed increases and mandate a rollback.
The court noted that the DoE had already declined the fee hike for the academic year 2023–24, and although the school contested this decision, no stay was granted. The court ruled that, without a DoE decision against the fee hike for the upcoming years, parents are required to pay according to the fee statements provided by the school.
Consequently, it ordered that the students be permitted to continue in their respective classes as long as 50% of the increased fee is paid, alongside the full base fee. This legal confrontation occurs alongside the Delhi government's proposal for new legislation aimed at curtailing arbitrary fee increases in private educational establishments. The proposed draft legislation includes establishing fee regulation committees at various levels—school, district, and state—with penalties for coercive actions such as denying students access to classrooms.
You may also like
Laughter Chefs 2: Bharti Singh's total earnings for 36 episodes
Admission Alert 2025: Apply for MA in Economics, Film Appreciation Course & PhD in Computer Science
F1 LIVE: Lewis Hamilton makes worrying statement as Max Verstappen decides Red Bull future
PM Modi targets Lalu Prasad Yadav, says 'people's land were snatched, poor were stripped off their rights' in Bihar
'One step at a time': Canada's new foreign minister on rebuilding ties with India
