New Delhi, Jan 8 The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to stay a notification directing private schools in the national capital to constitute fee regulation committees but extended the time for setting up such panels.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the Delhi government's Directorate of Education and the lieutenant governor on a batch of pleas challenging the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, and its subsequent rules, and asked them to file their replies.
The petitions also challenged the December 24, 2025, notification of the Directorate of Education (DoE) for the constitution and functioning of the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) for the academic session 2025-26 under the legislation and its rules.
The court, which refused to stay the notification, extended the time from January 10 to January 20 for the constitution of such committees. It also said the last date for submission of the fee proposed by the school managements to the committees should also be extended from January 25 to February 5.
"In the meantime, as an interim measure, we provide that any exercise undertaken in terms of the impugned notification of December 24, 2025, issued by the DoE, GNCTD, shall be subject to further orders passed in these petitions," the bench said.
Under the new framework, every private school will have to constitute an SLFRC. This committee will include representatives from the school management, the principal, three teachers, five parents and one nominee from the DoE. Members would be selected through a lottery system in the presence of observers to maintain transparency.
The SLFRC will examine fee proposals submitted by school managements and make a decision within 30 days.
The move marks the implementation of a new law to regulate and bring transparency to the fixation of private school fees from the current academic session. The Act will be implemented through a two-tier mechanism comprising school-level committees and district-level appellate bodies.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing one of the petitioners -- Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools -- said they have challenged the constitutional validity of the new Act and also urged the court to stay the notification, terming it to be bad in law.
He said such an order or notification could be passed by the lieutenant governor only, but here it has been passed by the DoE. He argued that either the notification should be stayed or the court may pass an order for no coercive steps against the schools.
Senior advocate SV Raju, representing the DoE, submitted that the notification can also be issued by the directorate.
After obtaining instructions from the DoE officials, he agreed to the court's suggestion to extend the time for compliance with the notification.
The petition of Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools, filed by advocate Kamal Gupta, said the legislations violate the fundamental rights of the managements of private schools in Delhi and have been enacted with no application of mind, are malafide, biased, arbitrary and malicious in nature.
