Delhi High Court Defers Constitution Of School-Level Fee Regulation Committees, Says Timelines Prima Facie Unworkable

The Delhi High Court on Saturday deferred implementation of Delhi government's mandate to private schools to constitute a school level fee regulation committee (SLFRC) for the upcoming academic session.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was dealing with a petitions filed by various school associations, including the Forum of Minority Schools and the Forum for Promotion of Quality Education for All, assailing the notification issued by the Delhi Government on February 01.

The Court said that during the pendency of the batch of petitions challenging the vires of the parent statute and rules, the operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the Notification shall remain in abeyance.

The Court permitted the private unaided schools to collect the same fees for Academic Year 2026–27 as were collected in the previous academic year, subject to the final outcome of the pleas.

The petitions challenge the Notification issued under Section 21 of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, to remove difficulties in implementing provisions relating to constitution of SLFRCs and fixation of fees for a three year block commencing 2026–27.

The Act and Rules had been notified in December last year. Earlier, the Supreme Court of India had clarified that the Act and Rules would not be implemented for Academic Year 2025–26, while leaving the challenge to the Notification to be decided by the High Court.

The Notification preponed timelines, requiring schools to constitute SLFRCs by February and complete the process of fee approval by March 27.

The Court observed that prima facie, the timelines as contemplated under the Notification are unworkable as, if the SLFRC is constituted as per the Notification, it will not be possible to complete the process of approval of fee by March 27.

“As there is no stipulation of the revised timeline for reference and determination of the fees by District Fee Appellate Committee in case of failure to arrive at a unanimous agreement for approval of the proposed fee by the SLFRC in the Notification, it would not be practicable to conclude the process of fixation / approval of the fees in terms of the Act before 01.04.2026, which the stated intent and purpose behind the issuance of the Notification,” the Court said.

It added that the Notification does not provide for the revised timeline for reference to the District Fee Appellate Committee and at the same time, the statute permits the Schools to collect the fee of the previous academic year during the pendency of the reference before the District Fee Appellate Committee.

“Therefore, we are of prima facie opinion that there is no difficulty that is required to be removed under Section 3 of the Act since there is no complete ban for collection of the fees, but the prohibition is only limited to collection of excess fee once the fee is fixed / approved under the Act. The timelines contemplated under the Notification do not contemplate the entire process of fixation / approval to be completed prior to 01.04.2026,” the Court said.

“As the fee is unlikely to be fixed for each of the Schools prior to 01.04.2026 and the Act provides that the Schools can collect the fee of the previous academic year until the fee is fixed / approved under the provisions of the Act, no prejudice would be caused if the Notification is put in abeyance till such time the substantive challenge against the Act, the Rules, the order and the Notification is decided by this Court,” it added.

The Bench observed that no irreparable loss will be caused to the students if the Notification is stayed as any fees levied during the pendency of the Petitions will be subject to outcome of these proceedings as the Schools will be liable to refund or adjust the fees in case the same is charged in excess of the fees that is ultimately fixed or approved in terms of the Act.

“Accordingly, the purpose and object of the Act shall be achieved as in case any excess fees than the fees fixed / approved as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules is charged, the same shall be liable to be refunded / adjusted during the course of the academic year. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if fixation / approval of the fees is deferred during the pendency of these Petitions since it will not cause any loss to the students,” the Court said.

Title: THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR & other connected matters

Click here to read order