Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, where the bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih is hearing the challenge. The Naya Samaj Parents Association brought the case against High Court orders permitting unaided schools on government-allotted land to hike fees without DoE approval. On 29 May 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice in a petition contesting Delhi High Court rulings that freed private unaided schools on state‐allotted land from seeking prior sanction before raising fees. The bench asked pointed questions – “If land is allotted free of cost or at a concessional rate, how can you exorbitantly increase fees without the government’s nod?” – underscoring the clash between schools’ autonomy and parents’ interests. The issue matters because it touches on fundamental values: ensuring education remains accessible (a right implicit in Article 21) versus protecting private institutions’ rights under Article 19(1)(g). In short, Delhi’s highest court must reconcile past precedents on fee regulation with a recent law-and-order vacuum that has alarmed middle-class parents.
Background
- Government-Allotted School Lands: Many of Delhi’s prominent unaided schools occupy Delhi Development Authority (DDA) or other state-allotted land at concessional rates, subject to public-interest conditions (reserving 25% of seats for disadvantaged students). Their land allotment letters typically bind them to social obligations.
- Regulatory Framework: Under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the Director of Education (DoE) has broad powers to inspect and regulate unaided private schools, including fee structures. Section 17(3) notably empowers the DoE to ensure fees are not “excessive” or used for profiteering. Thus, historically, these schools have operated under an interventionist regime to keep education affordable.
- Key Court Decisions: Courts have repeatedly underscored that education is not a commercial business, and schools on concessional land must honour allotment terms. In Modern School v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court upheld the DoE’s right to cap tuition fees and barred diversion of school funds to parent trusts. Justice Kapadia observed that “what is prohibited is the commercialisation of education,” allowing only a modest “development fund” (up to 10–15% of fees) for expansion. The 2004 judgment enforced DDA stipulations: unaided schools on concessional plots must admit 25% free students and could not hike fees without DoE consent. In Justice For All v. GNCTD (Delhi HC, 2016), the court echoed this: “schools cannot indulge in profiteering,” and recognised that all fees are “subject to regulation by [the DoE]” under Section 17(3). It held that DDA-land schools are bound by their allotment clauses, quoting Modern School para. 28 to reiterate that no tuition can be increased “without the prior sanction of [DoE]”.
- Recent Litigation Timeline: Tension intensified late last year when Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party government sought to enforce these rules. In April 2024, a Delhi High Court single-judge bench stayed a DoE circular requiring prior approval for fee hikes. In April 2025, a Division Bench effectively upheld that stay (dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds). Under these HC orders, unaided schools on government land have been free to raise fees – some by double digits – without clearance, contrary to earlier practice. The Naya Samaj Parents Association then moved the Supreme Court, specifically challenging those HC rulings that allowed fees to jump 50–100% without oversight.
Similar Judgments
- Modern School v. Union of India (2004): The Supreme Court unanimously recognised the state’s duty to prevent profiteering in education. It upheld the DoE regulation of private school fees and prohibited schools from using tuition surpluses for non-educational purposes. Only a “reasonable sum” (up to 10–15% of costs) could go into a separate development fund. The Court sternly warned against treating education as a business, noting education must not become a means of illicit enrichment. This case established that elite Delhi schools on DDA land must admit free-quota students and submit fee proposals for government approval.
- Justice For All v. GNCTD (Delhi HC, 2016): The Delhi High Court reaffirmed Modern School’s principles. It held that all fees charged by unaided schools are subject to DoE scrutiny under Section 17(3) of the DSE Act, and the DoE may intervene if any hike appears excessive or profiteering. Crucially, for schools on government (DDA) land, the Court deemed the DDA allotment’s fee-clause binding: quoting Modern School paragraph 28, it ruled that no tuition increase could occur “without the prior sanction of the DoE”. Thus, both judgments stand for the proposition that unaided schools do not have an unfettered right to raise fees arbitrarily.
- Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): A landmark Supreme Court case recognising education as part of the right to life (Article 21). The Court held that education is “fundamental to freedom and the progress of society” and struck down capitation fees in professional colleges as illegal. It affirmed that charging exorbitant fees creates “unreasonable financial hurdles” and violates equality. While Mohini Jain dealt with higher education, its principles underpin the idea that oppressive fees can deny a fundamental constitutional right. It reinforces that public-interest limits on educational costs serve fundamental values.
Educational Perspective
- Impact on Parents and Students: Recent fee hikes have burdened middle-class families across Delhi. As the petition notes, schools on government land have raised fees “multifold – mostly by up to 100%” for 2025, leaving parents in “confusion and panic”. News reports confirm that students unable to pay face penalties (library duty, withheld exams, etc.), pushing many parents into distress. Sustained protests and social media outcry by parent groups (like Naya Samaj and others) underscore the anxiety. One parent group reported “panic” and legal action as typical responses to otherwise promised fee freezes. The controversy highlights how unregulated hikes can effectively lock out aspiring middle-income families, conflicting with education’s social mission.
- Government Responses: The Delhi government has moved aggressively to curb unchecked fee rises. In April 2025, the Cabinet approved a draft Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, covering all 1,677 private (aided and unaided) schools. The Bill creates a three-tier fee committee system (school, district, state) with strong parental representation and appeals mechanisms. Violations (such as charging extra without approval) would be met with heavy fines (up to ₹10 lakh) and even derecognition for repeat offenders. Education Minister Ashish Sood announced that inspections have already been conducted in 970 schools, with notices issued to over 150 for illegal fee hikes. These measures signal a political will to enforce accountability, reflecting public anger over the issue.
- Stakeholder Views: Parent associations and activists see the petition as a fight for affordable education. They emphasise Mohini Jain’s warning that exorbitant fees “result in economic discrimination” against the less affluent. Conversely, private school managements (represented by the Action Committee of Unaided Recognised Schools) argue for institutional autonomy. They contend that, as largely self-financed entities, schools must retain discretion to fix fees based on costs. Indeed, courts have acknowledged that private schools have an “‘essentially absolute'” right to establish and administer their institutions, including setting fees. Regulatory powers are meant to ensure quality (qualified teachers, infrastructure, etc.), not to micromanage finances. Legal commentators note that the settled law distinguishes reasonable surplus (permitted for development) from profiteering (forbidden). The current dispute centres on where to draw that line: parents insist on strict oversight, while schools stress minimal interference.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s impending decision will be closely watched for its impact on school regulation and rights. If the Court sides with the parents, it will reaffirm that Delhi’s government-subsidised schools cannot bypass oversight, effectively enforcing Article 141’s mandate that Modern School and Justice for All are “the law of the land.” This would bolster the new Delhi fee-control law and affirm that even unaided schools on concessional land must obtain prior approval for hikes. A ruling in favour of schools, on the other hand, might emphasise educational autonomy, but will still have to address constitutional safeguards. In either scenario, the judgment must balance the “reasonable surplus” principle with public accountability.
It may also clarify how Mohini Jain’s ethos that education must remain “accessible to all” and not “reserved exclusively for the affluent” applies to private schooling today. Ultimately, the outcome will shape the future of Delhi’s fee regime: either reining in explosive increases or prompting legislators to pursue even stricter rules. In all events, the case underscores that education policy cannot ignore fundamental rights; private schools operate within a constitutional social compact that demands transparency and equity, even on leased government land.
About the Author
Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.