In a significant observation, the Delhi High Court has clarified that while the government has the authority to regulate school fees, such regulation must be limited to ensuring that schools do not engage in profiteering or commercialisation of education. The court emphasised that private unaided schools enjoy a degree of autonomy and that their right to fix reasonable fees cannot be unduly restricted by the state.

I wanted to write about this issue because it highlights one of the most debated aspects of school education — the balance between autonomy for private institutions and affordability for parents. With rising school fees often becoming a burden for families, the court’s stand on “reasonable regulation without interference” is crucial to maintaining both fairness and educational quality. Understanding this judgment helps educators, parents, and policymakers navigate the complex relationship between governance, economics, and education rights.

Delhi High Court’s Key Observation

The Delhi High Court made its observations while hearing petitions related to the Delhi government’s power to regulate the fee structures of private unaided schools. The court reaffirmed that education, though not a business, also cannot be treated purely as a charitable service when managed by private entities.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, who delivered the judgment, noted that the government has a duty to ensure schools do not indulge in profiteering or capitation fees, but it cannot interfere with legitimate financial management or operational autonomy. “The regulatory power should only aim to prevent commercial exploitation, not control genuine academic and financial functioning,” the court said.

Balancing Regulation and Autonomy

The court’s decision brings clarity to the scope of government intervention in education. While the state can set boundaries to ensure fairness, it must avoid excessive interference that could discourage private participation in the education sector.

The court stated that reasonable surplus income generated by schools can be used for improving infrastructure, teacher salaries, and educational facilities. This ensures that schools continue to grow and maintain standards while also being accountable.

The judgment aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings, including T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) and Modern School vs. Union of India (2004), which defined the limits of government control over private educational institutions. Both cases held that schools can collect fees to sustain and improve their operations, but profiteering is strictly prohibited.

Why Fee Regulation Has Been Contentious

Over the years, many parents in Delhi and other states have complained about steep annual hikes in school fees, mandatory charges for development funds, and other non-transparent expenses. The Delhi government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) had issued several circulars requiring schools to seek prior approval before revising fees.

Some private schools challenged these orders, arguing that such actions violated their right to administrative independence. The High Court’s ruling now draws a middle path — acknowledging the state’s role in curbing exploitation while preserving schools’ freedom to function efficiently.

Court’s Stand on Accountability and Transparency

The High Court also highlighted that transparency in fee collection is non-negotiable. Schools must maintain proper accounts and make their balance sheets, audit reports, and expenditure details available for scrutiny when required.

However, the court warned against any blanket restrictions that could force schools into financial distress or limit their ability to pay competitive salaries to teachers. It observed that education cannot be commercialised, but it must also be sustainable.

This means that schools should focus on quality learning rather than financial gain, while the government must regulate only where there is evidence of misuse or excessive profiteering.

Implications for Parents and Schools

The Delhi High Court’s ruling brings relief to both sides:

• For parents, it ensures that schools cannot arbitrarily raise fees or collect money under unjustified heads.
• For schools, it reaffirms their right to set fees that reflect operational costs, infrastructure upgrades, and teacher remuneration, as long as there is no exploitation.

The government’s role, therefore, becomes that of a watchdog — preventing excesses without micromanaging day-to-day affairs.

Education experts believe this decision may also guide similar debates in other states, where disputes over school fee regulation are common. States like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Rajasthan have faced ongoing tensions between private schools and education departments on this issue.

Moving Toward a Fair Fee Framework

To prevent future disputes, many educationists suggest adopting a transparent fee regulation framework, where:

• Schools disclose annual budgets and expenditure to a designated committee.
• Any fee revision follows a publicised, consultative process.
• Grievance redressal mechanisms are strengthened for parents.
• The state ensures that fee caps, if any, are based on real data rather than arbitrary limits.

Such measures would ensure a fair balance — allowing schools to remain financially healthy while keeping education accessible and affordable.