'Aimed To Ensure Education Is Not Commercialized': Patna High Court Upholds Law Regulating Private School Fees

In a landmark verdict, the Patna High Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Bihar's Private Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2019, dismissing the writ application filed by the Association of Independent Schools Bihar. While rejecting the writ application, the High Court stated that the government can regulate fees to prevent profiteering, and directed the state government to adopt the provisions of Rajasthan's Fees Regulation Act.Notably, Fee Regulation Act, 2019, prohibits all private and unaided schools from increasing their fees above 7% of that collected in the previous academic year.The division bench comprising Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed, “True, there are no guidelines prescribed insofar as assessing the various factors which would lead to the determination of reasonable fees, in the subject legislation, which was available in Section 8 of the Rajasthan Act, hedged in by additional factors as provided for in the Rules. The absence of guidelines cannot ipso facto result in invalidation of the Act framed, especially one in the nature of regulation aimed at ensuring that education is not commercialized and reduced to mere means of profiteering.”“The State Government has been granted sufficient power to make rules under the subject enactment,which has not been made till date. It would be sufficient to direct the State Government to make rules, and till then, the factors for determining the fees to be adopted from the Rajasthan Act and the Rules, .... shall be followed,” the bench added.The petitioner - Association of Independent Schools, Bihar - an Association of private schools in the State was aggrieved with the fee regulatory measure attempted by the State through a legislation as is evident from the Fee Regulation Act, 2019.The petitioners sought for declaring Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Fee Regulation Act ultra vires and also prayed for setting aside the letter dated 08.11.2019, issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Education Department, Patna, directing the private schools within the Patna division to ensure an increase of not more than 7% in the fee amount realized from the students, applicable from the last academic year.With regard to the direction issued by the Regional Deputy Director, a status quo was directed to be maintained by another Division Bench by order dated 19.12.2019. The Court at the outset stated, "The Fee Regulation Act, by virtue of the said direction has remained defunct and as of now, the challenge against the Regional Deputy Director's communication cannot survive as the direction itself has worked itself out. We would confine ourselves to the grounds raised of the provisions being ultra vires."Senior Counsel Bindhyachal Singh argued that the imposition of a 7% limit on fee increases is inherently arbitrary. He highlighted the absence of clear guidelines for the Fee Regulatory Committee (FRC) in evaluating requests from private schools, suggesting that factors such as the rural or urban location of the school should be considered in determining fee amounts.Singh contended that the FRC, lacking specific guidelines for fee fixation, possesses unchecked power, posing a risk of prejudicing private schools and jeopardizing the education of children, even when parents are willing to pay the stipulated fees. He criticized the legislative provision restricting annual increases to 7%, asserting that Sections 4(4) and 4(5) are inconsistent and create ambiguity.Citing various decisions of the Supreme Court, Singh argued that the financial autonomy of educational institutions, particularly minority institutions, is indisputable. He emphasized that these decisions apply directly to the present case.Singh asserted that the fee regulation infringes on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Apart from the absence of guidelines for the FRC, he pointed out the lack of an appellate remedy. Additionally, Singh referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of Rajasthan v. Indian School case [LL 2021 SC 240], highlighting the encroachment on the Central Board of School Education's regulatory mechanism by the legislation in question.Court's ObservationThe Court was of the opinion that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian School (supra). "The legislation which came up for consideration in Indian School (supra), if compared with the instant legislation, would resolve the grounds raised in this case," the Court added.The Court observed that in Indian School (supra), the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 (Rajasthan Act) constituted a School Level Fee Committee (SLFC), which was an internal committee to be constituted within the school.With that, the Court held that the fees regulation law of Bihar is almost like that of Rajasthan, which was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2021.The Court noted that the Rajasthan Act constituted a School Level Fee Committee (SLFC), which is an...

'Aimed To Ensure Education Is Not Commercialized': Patna High Court Upholds Law Regulating Private School Fees

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

'Aimed To Ensure Education Is Not Commercialized': Patna High Court Upholds Law Regulating Private School Fees

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers