The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to stay a notification issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), requiring private unaided schools in the National Capital Territory to constitute internal committees for the regulation of school fees, while granting limited procedural relief by extending the timelines for compliance.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia permitted private schools additional time to constitute the School Level Fee Regulation Committees, directing that the exercise be completed by January 20, in substitution of the earlier deadline of January 10. It further extended the outer limit for submission of proposed fee structures by school managements to February 5, as against the previously stipulated date of January 25.
The directions were issued on a batch of writ petitions instituted by private unaided schools assailing the constitutional validity of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, along with a consequential notification dated December 24, 2025, issued by the Directorate of Education.
The petitioners invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution, contending that the statutory framework impermissibly interferes with the autonomy of private educational institutions.
The 2025 enactment introduced a mandatory, structured mechanism for fee fixation and revision through a three-tier regulatory architecture involving representation from parents, school managements and government authorities. In furtherance of this statutory scheme, the challenged notification made it mandatory for private unaided schools to constitute a School Level Fee Regulation Committee comprising a chairperson, the school principal, five parent representatives, three teachers and a nominee of the Directorate of Education.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a consortium of schools, argued that the notification travelled beyond the parent statute and suffered from manifest arbitrariness, rendering it ultra vires and liable to be stayed at the threshold. He submitted that the delegated legislation has effectively rewritten the Act and imposed onerous compliance obligations without adequate legislative guidance.
The Counsel for the Delhi government defended the statutory regime as a constitutionally permissible exercise of regulatory power aimed at curbing profiteering and commercialisation of education. Reliance was placed on established jurisprudence recognising the State’s authority to regulate fee structures to prevent exploitation, while stopping short of direct price fixation.
After hearing the parties at length, the Bench declined to stay the notification at the interim stage, noting that fee regulation per se is not alien to constitutional doctrine. It, however, balanced equities by extending the timelines to ensure orderly compliance pending adjudication on the merits. The State’s counsel, upon obtaining instructions, did not oppose the limited extension sought.
The High Court also issued notice to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor, calling upon them to file detailed counter-affidavits.
The post Delhi High Court refuses to stay government notification on school fee regulation appeared first on India Legal.