What's in Delhi govt's new private school fee regulation bill & why are parents concerned
On Monday, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta and Education Minister Ashish Sood introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025. The move comes three months after they first announced the bill amid a wave of protests by parents over fee hikes by several private schools at the start of the academic session in April.
New Delhi: Calling its bill to regulate fees in private schools 'historic', the Delhi government Monday introduced the much-awaited draft legislation in the assembly as parents raised concerns over several of its provisions, including the requirement of at least 15 percent of parents uniting to challenge any fee hike by private schools, terming the condition as 'impractical'.
Speaking to the media, ahead of the assembly session, Sood said, 'Today marks a golden day in the history of Delhi's education system. For the first time in 27 years, a historic bill will be introduced in the assembly under the leadership of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.'
The bill was 'aimed at ending the exploitation, pressure, and mental harassment faced by parents over school fees', added Sood.
ThePrint explains what the draft bill is and why parents remain unconvinced that it will resolve the issue.
How will fee approvals work now?
According to the bill, each private school will need to form a School-Level Fee Regulation Committee annually. Constituted by 15 July of every academic year, the committee will include five parents from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), as selected in a draw of lots.
It must also include at least two women and at least one other member from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or socially and educationally backwards classes. Additionally, a representative from the Directorate of Education (DoE) will be part of the committee. The chairperson will be a representative of the school management.
Once the committee is in place, the school management should submit the proposed fee structure and all other relevant records, considering 31 July as the deadline to do so. For the next three academic years, the fee structure will stay fixed. The committee will have the authority to review and approve the fees, but cannot approve an amount higher than the one proposed by management. It may revise the amount downward.
The committee must decide on the fee within 30 days of receiving the proposal. Once approved, the fee structure will be on the school notice board in Hindi, English, and the medium of instruction. If the school has a website, the approved fee must also be published there. What the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee approves will be binding on the school for the next three academic years. The committee will also specify the various heads under which private schools can charge fees.
Also Read: Two realities of NEP: Sensory classrooms & hi-tech labs, to kids sitting on floor & no teachers
What happens if parents aren't satisfied?
The bill mandates that any challenge to the decision of the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee must come from an 'Aggrieved Parents Group', comprising at least 15 percent of the total number of parents in the school. Only when supported by at least 15 percent of the parent body, a fee-related grievance will be considered.
When it wishes to challenge the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee, the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' can approach the District Fee Appellate Committee—constituted by the Director of Education, chaired by the district Deputy Director of Education, and including representatives from the school management and the parent-teacher association, and a chartered accountant.
The District Fee Appellate Committee must communicate its decision on any fee dispute within 30 days of receiving the appeal, and no later than 45 days within the same academic year. If it fails to do so, the matter will automatically be referred to the Revision Committee, as specified in the Act. If the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' or school management is dissatisfied with the decision, they could file an appeal before the Revision Committee within 30 days.
The Revision Committee will be notified by the government and chaired by an eminent person with notable contributions in the field of education. It will also have representatives from the parents and the school.
The bill proposes strict penalties for non-compliance, with fines ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh.
In cases of non-payment, the government can seize and sell the movable or immovable property of the school management, appoint a receiver to manage assets, or take any other recovery action, as prescribed in the bill. However, it will not impose a penalty without hearing both parties and giving adequate time.
Sudha Acharya, principal of ITL public school, said the school has already constituted the school level committee. 'We will try to take parents on board right from the beginning so that there is no need to go to the district committee. It's too early to comment on the bill. Let it first be pass and come into effect,' she said.
Why are parents raising concerns?
Among the various concerns parents are raising over the proposed bill, the most important is how the bill defines 'aggrieved parents'. It would deprive individual parents of their right to raise a complaint, they argue.
'Requiring a minimum of 15 percent of a school's parents to challenge the school-level Fee Regulatory Committee's decision before the district committee is nearly impossible. It effectively denies parents the right to contest arbitrary fee hikes,' said Ashok Agarwal, chairperson of All India Parents Association.
Parents are also raising concerns over the selection process for parent representatives in the school-level committee. 'Why cannot there be elections instead? Who will ensure the draw of lots is fair and free from discrepancies? How do you guarantee transparency?' asked Shikha Bhagga, a lawyer and member of the Forum of Indian Parents.
Bhagga also questioned the criteria to determine fees. 'Infrastructure should not be a factor in deciding the fee—it is the school's asset, not the responsibility of the students. Both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have held in several cases that infrastructure has no direct bearing on fees,' she said.
Moreover, parents are showing concern over one of the clauses—the fees, which schools will charge, starting 1 April 2025, will be the proposed fee for the 2025–26 academic year.
'Many schools hiked fees illegally this year without any approval, and they continue to charge them. The bill not only allows that but effectively legitimises it,' Bhagga added.
Questioning the bill, AAP's Atishi called it a deliberate attempt by the BJP government to protect the interests of private schools, rather than those of the students and parents.
'The government intentionally delayed the bill from April to July, allowing schools to hike fees unchecked and extort money from parents. The biggest concern is that the bill includes no provision to roll back these fee hikes, effectively legitimising them. This bill serves private school owners, not the public,' she said in a press conference.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: 'Honest history, not ideology'—NCERT social science panel chief on changes in Class 8 textbook
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
14 minutes ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
₹10 lakh fine, derecognition: Delhi Govt's bill proposes ‘permanent solution' for ‘arbitrary' school fee hikes
Delhi Education Minister Ashish Sood on Monday tabled the "Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees), Bill, 2025" in the Delhi Assembly. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta-led Delhi government has said the proposed law would regulate the arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in the national capital, providing relief to lakhs of students and their families. Sood said that the proposed legislation seeks to end the commercialisation of education and take action against those exploiting it for profit. "Education is not a thing to be sold. This bill aims to halt the commercialisation of education. We are bringing the bill to take action against those mafias who are selling education..." Sood said while tabling the bill on the first day of the Monsoon session of the Eighth Legislative Assembly of Delhi, on Monday. A discussion on the bill is scheduled in the House today. Sood said the proposed legislation would provide a 'permanent solution to a long-ignored issue that affects millions of parents and children in Delhi.' The draft bill, which was approved by Rekha Gupta-led Delhi Cabinet in April, covers all 1,677 private unaided schools in the Capital. It proposes sweeping reforms to the fee regulation system, including a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, penalties of up to ₹ 10 lakh for violations, and a mandatory role for parents in deciding fee structures. 'This bill is a small effort on our part to honour Dr. Mukherjee's vision and to ensure that education does not become a burden on the people of India, but instead becomes a path leading them to a better future,' Sood said later. The bill proposes the formation of three key committees: the School Level Fee Regulation Committee, the District Fee Appellate Committee, and the Revision Committee. It bars any school from collecting fees in excess of what has been approved under it. Each private school has to constitute a School-Level Fee Regulation Committee annually on 15 July. The committee will include five parents from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), selected by a draw of lots. It will also include at least two women and at least one other member from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or socially and educationally backwards classes. A representative from the Directorate of Education (DoE) will also be part of the committee. The chairperson will be a representative of the school management, the draft law says. The school management must submit fee proposals to this panel by July 31 and have them approved by September 15. Once finalised, the fee structure will stay fixed for the next three academic years. The decision of the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee must come from an 'Aggrieved Parents Group' comprising at least 15 per cent of the particular school's parents. The school can then escalate the matter to the District Appellate Committee by September 30. Disputes must be resolved within 45 days at each appellate level. The Revision Committee has the final authority, and its rulings will be binding for three years. Section 8 of the draft bill lists the criteria for determining fees – school location, infrastructure, teacher salaries, and revenue surplus. Section 12 details penalties. Unauthorised fee hikes can invite fines between ₹ 1– ₹ 10 lakh, doubling every 20 days until compliance. Repeat offenders will be required to refund excess fees and may lose recognition if violations continue. Sood told reporters that for ten years, the Aam Aadmi Party was sitting in its air-conditioned rooms, and parents were going to court with their children for fees. The opposition AAP, however, slammed the legislation, calling it a 'sham bill' that legalises profiteering and sidelines parent voices. Leader of Opposition in Delhi Assembly and former CM Atishi demanded that it be sent to a select committee. This bill is a small effort on our part to honour Dr. Mukherjee's vision and to ensure that education does not become a burden. 'After letting private schools hike fees unchecked for four months, the BJP now brings a sham bill that hands control to school owners, blocks parent voices, and protects profiteers. The AAP will fight it in the Assembly, on the streets, and in court. We have demanded that the bill be sent to a Select Committee and all fee hikes frozen at 2024–25 levels,' Atishi said. Some parents have raised issues with the proposed law, particularly with the definition of 'aggrieved parents.' Others have issues with the selection process for parent representatives in the school-level committee. 'Requiring a minimum of 15 percent of a school's parents to challenge the school-level Fee Regulatory Committee's decision before the district committee is nearly impossible. It effectively denies parents the right to contest arbitrary fee hikes,' Ashok Agarwal, chairperson of All India Parents Association, told news website The Print.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
PWD corruption case: ‘No proof' against Delhi ex-minister Satyendar Jain; court accepts CBI closure report
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday accepted the closure report filed by CBI in a case registered against former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain and others over allegations of irregular engagement of professionals in the PWD and payments made from unrelated project funds. The court of special judge Dig Vinay Singh noted that despite several years of investigation, no incriminating evidence was found against anyone to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption (POC) Act, 1988, or any other offence. "When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Not every decision made in an official capacity-that does not strictly follow rules-warrants invoking the POC Act. There must be at least some material to justify applying the provisions of the POC Act, 1988. Mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act," the judge said. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed," the court observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is AI the secret to mastering a new language faster than ever? See why experts are buzzing. Talkpal AI Undo The FIR was registered in 2018 against Jain, who was the then PWD minister, and other PWD officials, based on a complaint from Delhi govt's directorate of vigilance. According to prosecution, Jain and PWD officials irregularly hired a 'creative team' of consultants, breaching recruitment and financial regulations. The court said CBI found no evidence of pecuniary advantage, conspiracy, or corruption, and the protest petition does not provide any sufficient prima facie evidence from investigations or otherwise, warranting further inquiry. "Since the issues relate to administrative decisions without criminal elements, and more than six years have passed, further investigation is unwarranted. CBI requests the protest petition be dismissed and the closure report accepted," the court ruled. The judge said that if any fresh material is received against anyone, CBI would be at liberty to probe the matter further. Other pending cases against Jain include CCTV project corruption case, a money laundering case and disproportionate case. In March 2025, a case was registered against Jain for allegedly accepting a Rs 7 crore bribe to waive off a penalty imposed on Bharat Electronics Ltd for delays in installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. In the money laundering case, he was arrested by ED in May 2022 for alleged money laundering. In Jan 2025, CBI informed a special court that it had secured approval from Delhi LG to prosecute Jain in a disproportionate assets case.
