The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 is being fought in court by a group of minority schools.
Today, the Delhi High Court told the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) about a group of cases from minority schools that question whether or not a new law requiring government approval for private school fee hikes is right under the constitution.
It was made by a group of two judges, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The case will be heard again in March 2026.
"The respondents can file a master counter affidavit in all of these cases after giving it to the petitioners." The court says, "Please file in six weeks."
The Court said that schools can set up groups at the school level to control the fees they charge by January 20, not January 10, as was originally due.
The Bench also said that the deadline for the school management's planned fee to be sent to the committee has been pushed back to February 5. It used to have to be done by January 25.
The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, was challenged in the constitution by a number of minority schools in the national capital.
The new law requires that all fee hikes in private schools must be approved through a transparent, three-tier committee system involving parents, school management and government representatives.
A notification published on December 24, 2025, by Delhi's Directorate of Education (DoE) was also challenged before the Court.
The notification ordered private unaided schools to form a School Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) by January 10, 2026. The committee was ordered to comprise a chairperson, principal, five parents, three teachers and one representative from the DoE.
Notably, on January 8, several private schools challenged the new act and the notice. The Court had issued notices in those cases too.
The counsel appearing for the minority schools today argued that the law violates Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which gives all minorities, whether religious or linguistic, the fundamental right to create and administer their own educational institutions.
He argued that the minority schools have the right to fix their own fee and the government can only check that the fee charged does not amount to profiteering.
“My submission is that prior approval [by government] is wrong… I am saying that this prior approval clause is in clear violation of article 30,” the counsel said.
Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for the government and defended the law, saying that the Supreme Court judgments interpreting Article 30 permit regulatory measures by the government
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
