Fee Fixation Panel Should Interfere Only When Fee Shocks Conscience; Cannot Micromanage Every Private School: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee (FFRC) is not expected to undertake an exhaustive scrutiny of the fee structure of every private educational institution and should ordinarily interfere only where the proposed fee structure shocks its conscience or indicates clear commercialisation or profiteering.

Dealing with a challenge to amendments introduced in the J&K School Education Act, 2002 and orders passed by the FFRC, a bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that while the FFRC is empowered to curb commercialisation of education, it must adopt a rational and selective approach in scrutinising fee structures.

The Court noted that there are over 5,000 private educational institutions in the Union Territory, making it impractical for the FFRC to conduct in-depth scrutiny of each institution's fee proposal.

It held that the FFRC should focus on a limited category of cases—particularly large private schools in urban areas or cases where specific complaints of profiteering are received from parents or representative bodies.

The Bench observed that the statutory framework under the Act of 2002 and the Fee Fixation Rules, 2022 provides sufficient guidance to determine whether a fee structure amounts to commercialisation.

In the absence of a uniform yardstick, the FFRC must evaluate factors such as infrastructure, facilities provided, and criteria enumerated under Rule 5 of the Fee Rules, while giving reasonable leeway to private institutions in proposing their fees.

Emphasising that establishment of a private educational institution is an “occupation” protected under law, the Court remarked that citizens are not compelled to seek education from private schools and have the option of attending government schools.

The Court pointedly observed that the increasing dependence on private schools is a consequence of the State's failure to adequately deliver public education, and not a compulsion created by private institutions.

On the constitutional challenge to Sections 20A to 20I inserted by S.O. 3466(E) of 2020, the Court upheld the amendments in general, holding that they are in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education. However, it struck down Section 20A(2) to the extent it allowed the FFRC to be headed by a retired Financial Commissioner or equivalent officer.

The Court held that this provision was contrary to the Supreme Court's clear mandate that the FFRC must be headed by a retired High Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice. It directed that Section 20A(2) be substituted accordingly, a position that was virtually conceded by the respondents during arguments.

With regard to transport fee, the Court declined to interfere with the FFRC's order dated 06.10.2022 limiting the hike to 14%, noting that the FFRC was already seized of the issue. The Court clarified that providing transport is not a mandatory requirement for private schools and that transport charges should not ordinarily form part of school fee, though the statute includes transport fee within the definition of “fee”.

The Court directed the FFRC to constitute a committee comprising, inter alia, senior officials from the Transport Department and Consumer Affairs Department to frame broad guidelines for fixation and periodic revision of transport fees. Until such exercise is completed, the existing FFRC order dated 06.10.2022 would continue to regulate transport charges in the Union Territory.

Before concluding, the High Court urged the UT Government to revisit the Fee Fixation Regulations, 2022 and lay down clearer parameters to ensure uniformity, prevent profiteering, and avoid stifling genuine private schools—especially those established in rural areas—through excessive regulatory interference.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioners: Mr. NA Beigh Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Murshid Rashid Advocate

For Respondents: T.M.Shamsi DSGI with Ms. Shagufta Maqbool Advocate forR-1 & 2 Mr. Mohsin Qadri Sr. AAG with Ms Maha Majeed and Mr Mohd Younis Hafiz Advocates

Case-Title: New Convent High School, Gogji Bagh & Ors. Vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 

Click Here To Read/Download Order