Can A Student Be Expelled From School For Non-Payment Of Fees During Elementary Education? Bombay High Court Answers
Emphasising on the importance of education in today's world, the Bombay High Court recently came to rescue of a 13-year-old girl student, who was removed from her school for non-payment of fees.Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode held the school's action to be 'illegal and arbitrary' in view of the Right of Children to Free and...
Emphasising on the importance of education in today's world, the Bombay High Court recently came to rescue of a 13-year-old girl student, who was removed from her school for non-payment of fees.
Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode held the school's action to be 'illegal and arbitrary' in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and therefore, ordered the Father Agnel School at Bhandara District to re-admit the class 7th girl student and also ordered the student's parents to clear the fees of Rs 23,900 within two weeks.
"In today's world, importance of education cannot be undermined as it's due to the education only, the personality of person blossoms. A girl student i.e. petitioner, who is 13 year old was issued with the transfer certificate for non payment of fees and consequently was deprived of taking education," the judges observed in the order passed on February 16.
According to the petition filed by the student, her father, protested the functioning of the school and highlighted its 'profiteering and exploitation' of children by fixing arbitrary fees and also by not using NCERT books. On the other hand, the school contended that the father for political mileage, used the daughter, and even pressurised the school management by threatening to 'immolate' himself.
While the student and her father contended that the RTE Act of 2009 was applicable on the school, the management claimed that the Panchayat Education Officer, without any authority and prior sanction, granted it approval under the RTE Act yet the provisions of the said enactment were not applicable to the school since it was affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and was also registered and recognised as minority institution the Maharashtra government, which was unaided.
On the school's contention that the father misused the daughter for his own political mileage, and that he has caused serious mental, physical and academic damage to the daughter, the judges said, "It is thus clear that in one breath, the school has shown concern about safety of child and in another, has issued a transfer certificate in her favour."
The bench while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court and the introduction of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, said, "If the true spirit of Article 21-A and the RTE Act of 2009 is taken into consideration, it can be definitely said that the school was not at all justified in issuing the transfer certificate."
The bench further noted that the Government of Maharashtra had issued an 'no objection certificate' for starting a school in CBSE section at Father Agnel School, to be affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi on a condition that school shall abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by the Government of Maharashtra.
"It would be necessary to mention here that school management cannot blow both hot and cold. The act of school of taking benefit under communications dated October 11, 2007 (NOC by Maha Govt for Setting up CBSE School) on one hand by running the school and on other hand saying that the provisions of Act of 2009 are not applicable is a striking example of unfairness and arbitrary action. Once, the school management have acted on these communications, now it cannot permit to run away from their responsibilities. Having once held that the provisions of the Act of 2009 are applicable to the school, the impugned action of expelling petitioner from the school before the completion of her elementary education is clearly in violation of Section 16(4) of the aforesaid Act of 2009 and is therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law," the judges held.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.
Appearance:
Advocate Nitin Lalwani appeared for the Petitioners.
Assistant Government Pleader PP Pendke represented the State Authorities.
Advocates P Sathianathan and WT Mathew represented the School.
Case Title: Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra (3228 of 2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87