In a batch of petitions filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge the Delhi School Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2026 (Notification), and the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Rules, 2025 (Rules) for being arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed Clause 3(1) and (2) to be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the petitions and that the petitioners would collect the same feed for the upcoming academic year as was collected in the previous year.
To bring transparency in matters of fixation, regulation, and collection of fees by schools in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and to supplement the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSEA), the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 (Act), was enacted, which came into force on 10-12-2025.
On 24-12-2025, the Director of Education issued an order operationalising the Act, along with the Rules for Academic Session 2025-26, and directed the mandatory constitution of the School Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC). Aggrieved by various provisions, the present petitions were filed. As an interim measure, the Court, by its order dated 08-01-2026, provided that any exercise undertaken pursuant to the said order would be subject to further orders and extended the time for the constitution of the SLFRC till 05-02-2026.
The order dated 08-01-2026 was challenged before the Supreme Court, and during the pendency of the same, the respondents issued the impugned notification. The Supreme Court disposed of the said petition, clarifying that the Act and Rules would not be implemented for the Academic Year 2025-26. Thus, the present petitions challenging the impugned notification were filed in addition to the ones challenging the Act, the Rules, and the Order.
By an order dated 09-02-2026, passed in this batch, the petitions are listed for final hearing on 12-03-2026. Regarding the applications seeking a stay of the operation and implementation of the Notification, the respondents were given time to file their response, and it was provided that, in the meantime, schools that had not constituted the SLFRC shall not be required to form the same till the next date.
The petitioners asserted that the stand taken by the Director of Education that the fee needs to be fixed before 01-04-2026, before the start of the Academic year 2026-27, was unworkable, given the timeline stipulated under the Act and Rules for the formation of SLFRC for fixing of fees.
The Court stated that the only issue to be determined was as to whether, during the pendency of the petitions, the impugned Notification, which prescribed timelines for the constitution of the SLFRC, should be implemented. It was noted that the challenge was on the ground that the requirement of all SLFRC members to be present to constitute a quorum and for having a unanimous decision was unworkable, as it would result in taking away the legitimate right of the schools to determine the fees, and that a unanimous decision was impossible considering the conflicting interests of the members.
Another challenge against the requirement of having at least one member from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or socially/educationally backward classes as the schools did not have the requisite data or time to identify parents belonging to such categories. Additionally, the Court noted the assertion that the timelines proposed by the impugned Notification did not permit audited financial statements for the financial year 2025-26 to be available for consideration by SLFRC, as the same would not be ready prior to 01-04-2026.
The Court stated that, prima facie, the timelines under the impugned Notification were unworkable, as even if SLFRC is constituted, it would be unable to complete the fee approval process by 27-03-2026. It was further noted that, in case SLFRC is unable to reach a unanimous agreement, the School Management has to refer the matter to the District Fee Appellate Committee for a decision within 15 days, but the revised timeline for referring the matter to the appellate committee was not contemplated under the impugned Notification.
It was stated that, since there was no stipulation of the revised timeline, in case of failure to reach a unanimous agreement, it would not be practicable to conclude the process of fixation/approval of fees under the Act before 01-04-2026.
The Court opined that there was no difficulty to be removed under Section 3 of the Act, since there was no complete ban on the collection of fees, but only a limited prohibition on the collection of excess fees once the same is fixed. It was stated that since the fees were unlikely to be fixed prior to 01-04-2026, and the Act provides that schools can collect fees as per the previous academic year until such fixation, no prejudice would be caused if the Notification is put in abeyance.
Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the Notification was seeking to fix the date for the Academic Year 2026-27 in the same year, the Court refused to accept the same and stated that the Academic Year 2026-27 would commence from 01-04-2026 and that the Notification contemplated fixing the fees before the start of the academic year. Hence, the Court held that it would be considered as the previous academic year, i.e., 2025-26.
Further, the Court stated that the Act contemplated fixing a fee for a block of three academic years and that the parents of students admitted in the second and third years would, in any case, not have an opportunity to participate in the constitution of the SLFRC. However, it was said that no irreparable loss would be caused to the students if the Notification is stayed, as any fees levied during the pendency of the petitions would be subject to the outcome of the same.
Thus, the Court directed the operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and (2) of the Notification to remain in abeyance during the pendency of the proceedings and that the petitioners would be entitled to collect the same fees for the upcoming academic year as were collected for the previous academic year till the fee is fixed as per the Act and Rules.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Akhil Sibal (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Kamal Gupta, Ms. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Siddharth Arora, Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Mr. Romy Chacko (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Mr. Varun Mudgal, Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Akshat Singh, Mr. Joe Sebastian, Ms. Geetika Panwar, Ms. Vedanta Varma, Mr. Arjun Garg, Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Mr. Puneet Mittal (Sr. Adv.), Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta, Mr. Namit Suri, Mr. Rameezuddin Raja, Ms. Tanya Sharma, Ms. P. Geetanjali, Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Ishita Pandey, Ms. Yogita
For Respondents – Mr. S.V. Raju (ASG), Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Samrat Goswami, Mr. Ayush Raj, Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Satyam, Mr. Sikhar Yadav, Mr. Chinmay, Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Mr. Aryansh Shukla, Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa, Mr. Udit Bajpai, Mr. Shaurya Sarin, Ms. Aditi Andley, Mr. Hitarth Raja, Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rajpal Singh (Deputy Director of Education, GNCTD), Mr. Rajiv Tawar (OSD, Litigation, DOE, GNCTD), Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Ms. Khushboo Mittal
For Impleaders – Ms. Bhavya Jain, Mr. Khagesh B. Jha
