Supreme Court backs Delhi private school fee regulation, but questions govt's 'hurried implementation'

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the implementation of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 by the Delhi government, questioning whether the Act and a subsequent government circular could be enforced during the ongoing academic session.

The Action Committee of Unaided Recognised Private Schools, comprising over 900 Delhi private unaided schools, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court, which refused to grant relief to the implementation of the Delhi fee regulation Act.

The petitioners argued that there was an “irreconcilable conflict” between the new legislation introduced and the existing Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, which governs the private schools in the capital city.

Noting that the fees charged by private schools are very high, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe supported the objective of regulating private school fees; however, it expressed apprehension over hurried implementation. “We are in favour of the legislation… but in a hurry, you may end up not properly constituting the committees,” the bench said, as per reports.

Also read Delhi School Fee Hike: How govt plans to check private schools with new bill and why it’s ‘complicated'

Fee regulation, the court observed, requires institutional mechanisms to be set up in accordance with the law.

While the senior advocate for private school management argued that a change in rules during the ongoing academic year is legally and administratively flawed, the Bench clarified that it was not inclined to interfere with the legislation at this stage, but stressed that implementation must align with statutory timelines and ground realities, Bar and Bench reported.

It also warned that hasty enforcement could affect institutional viability and defeat the objective of the Act.

The top court asked the Delhi government to clarify whether the fee regulation exercise was confined strictly to the 2025-26 academic year. The matter has been listed for further hearing.