New Delhi: A group of minority educational institutions has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of a new law that requires government approval for fee hikes in private schools. The petitions contest the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, arguing that it violates the fundamental rights of minority institutions.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor after hearing the batch of petitions. The Court directed the respondents to file a consolidated counter affidavit within six weeks after serving copies to the petitioners. The matter is listed for further hearing in March 2026.
While issuing notice, the High Court granted interim relief by extending deadlines prescribed under the new law. Schools have been allowed time until January 20 to constitute School Level Fee Regulation Committees, extending the earlier deadline of January 10. The deadline for submitting proposed fee structures to the committee has been extended to February 5 from January 25. The Court said the extensions were required since the validity of the law itself was under challenge.
The Act seeks to regulate fee hikes in private unaided schools through a structured approval system. It introduces a three tier mechanism involving school level committees, district authorities, and a state level body. Any proposal for revising fees must first be examined by a School Level Fee Regulation Committee.
As per a Directorate of Education notification issued on December 24, 2025, the committee must include the school principal as chairperson, five parents, three teachers, and one government representative. Both the parent Act and the notification have been challenged by the minority institutions.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the law violates Article 30 of the Constitution, which protects the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The counsel submitted that prior government approval for fee fixation infringes upon institutional autonomy. While regulation to prevent profiteering is permissible, compulsory approval was described as unconstitutional.
The petitioners further argued that the Act places minority institutions on the same footing as non minority schools, weakening the special protection guaranteed under the Constitution.
Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju defended the law on behalf of the Delhi government. He relied on Supreme Court rulings that allow reasonable regulation of minority institutions. He argued that transparency and accountability in fee fixation were necessary to safeguard parents and students from arbitrary increases.
Earlier, the High Court had issued notices in separate petitions filed by private unaided schools challenging the same law. With multiple challenges pending, the Court’s final decision is expected to shape the future of school fee regulation and minority rights in Delhi.
