HC dismisses plea challenging validity of CG's school fee regulation
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petitions were filed by an association of private schools contesting the Chhattisgarh Non-Governmental Schools Fee Regulation Act, 2020, and the corresponding rules. The petitioners claimed the legislation violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
According to the association, fee regulation under the Act would pose serious financial challenges for unaided private schools that receive no govt aid.
They argued that CBSE-affiliated member schools rely entirely on fees collected from parents to cover salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff, infrastructure maintenance, and other statutory obligations.
However, the court cited the precedent set in R.N. Goyal v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others, reiterating that a rule serving the general public good cannot be invalidated solely because it causes inconvenience to a particular group or individual.
The court held that the 2020 Act and its rules are constitutionally sound and do not suffer from unreasonableness. "Consequently, we find no justification to strike down the Act or the rules, as they are neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," the bench stated.
Further, the court noted that the petitioner societies and associations cannot invoke Article 19, as its protections extend only to citizens.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Since the petitioners are not individuals but legal entities, they are not entitled to claim rights under Article 19(1). This, too, constituted a ground for dismissal.
The court emphasised once again that individual hardship does not warrant invalidation of legislation enacted in the wider public interest. It reiterated that where rules framed under Article 309 serve the general good, their impact on specific individuals or institutions cannot form a basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
In conclusion, the court found no merit in the challenge to the 2020 Act and rules. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
However, the judgment clarified that members of the petitioner associations are not barred from seeking relief through the appellate mechanism available under Section 13 of the 2020 Act, should they feel aggrieved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC questions U.P.'s use of ordinance to take control of Banke Bihari temple
NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) questioned the Uttar Pradesh government's haste in promulgating an ordinance to take over the management of the ancient Banke Bihari temple at Vrindavan in Mathura. A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant also expressed disapproval of the 'clandestine' manner employed by the State to secure the court's permission, getting a judgment on May 15 by filing a civil dispute to use temple funds to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor project. The Bench orally considered recalling its directions in the May verdict allowing the use of the temple funds for the corridor development project, which may spell a blow to the State Government's plans. The court also suggested passing an order to have a committee manage the temple until the High Court decided the validity of the ordinance. The Bench adjourned the case to August 5, asking Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who appeared for Uttar Pradesh, to take instructions from the State Government on the suggestions. Find a way out 'This is the land of Lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let's find a way out to resolve this dispute that has been pending for years and develop the area in the interests of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created, as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue,' Justice Kant remarked. The bench assured all the stakeholders, including factions engaged in pitch rivalry over the temple management, that a responsible person would take care of temple affairs besides implementing the mandate to develop the adjoining areas and small temples in nearby localities. The managing committee members and other petitioners, who sought the recall or modification of the May 15 decision, were asked for suggestions with respect to the management of the temple. The court was hearing a plea by the management committee of the temple, which has challenged the ordinance.
The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Pollution Control Boards have power to impose restitutionary damages under Water, Air Acts, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) gave Pollution Control Boards more teeth by declaring their power to impose and collect restitutionary damages to completely restore polluted air and waterbodies back to their original, pristine selves in an ecosystem. 'We direct that Pollution Control Boards can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' Justice P.S. Narasimha, who authored the judgment, held. The judgment came on an appeal filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee against a Delhi High Court decision that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages in exercise of powers under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, further directed that the power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under the Water and Air Acts should be enforced only after issuing the necessary subordinate legislation in the form of rules and regulations under both statutes. The rules must incorporate the basic principles of natural justice. 'According to the polluter pays principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry… The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged,' Justice Narasimha observed. The judgment said the payment of restitutory damages was distinct from charging punitive damages. 'Bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a different matter,' the court distinguished. Enormous responsibilities Justice Narasimha held that the Pollution Control Boards had expansive powers and 'enormous responsibilities' under the Water Act and the Air Act. They had a broad statutory mandate to prevent, control and abate water and air pollution. The provisions under these statutes bestowed the Boards with the power to direct closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process. Further, this power extended to directing the stoppage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service. The laws allow the Boards significant flexibility in deciding the nature of directions. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow. In other words, remedial jurisprudence must keep pace with expanding rights and regulatory challenges. It is not sufficient that courts adopt injunctory, mandatory and compensatory remedies… Remedial powers or restitutionary directives are a necessary concomitant of both the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and an equal concomitant of the duties of a statutory regulator,' Justice Narasimha wrote.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC agrees to examine plea to repeal Bodh Gaya temple law
Gaya: The long-pending issue of total control over management and administration of the Unesco world heritage Mahabodhi Mahavihara being raised from time to time by a section of Buddhists got a ray of hope, as a bench of the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea for repealing the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The demand of Buddhists' included replacing the Act with a central law. The bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the petition and tagged it for further hearing. Earlier on June 30, the apex court had turned down the petition and asked the petitioner to move high court concerned. Mahavihara campus in comprises the sacred Bodhi (peepal) tree, around 50-metres tall shrine structure, the lotus pond known as Muchlind pond, several ancient stupas and other religious signs of Buddha's enlightenment journey. Practising meditation under the shadow of the tree, Prince Siddhartha attained enlightenment to be called Buddha, around 2,600 years ago. According to the temple Act 1949, an eight-member committee comprising four Buddhists and four Hindu members takes care of management and administration of the sacred shrine. District magistrate of Gaya happens to be ex-officio chairman of the committee, while the member secretary is nominated by home department of the state govt. Apart from seeking all members from Buddhist community in the committee, the petition has also sought removal of encroachment in the vicinity of the Mahavihara campus.
