In a significant development for parents and private institutions in the capital, the Delhi High Court has declined to put a hold on the recently enacted fee regulation law. The court, however, has provided some breathing room to schools by extending crucial deadlines for compliance.
Court's Decision and Extended Timelines
A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard a series of petitions challenging the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, and its associated rules. While the court refused to grant an immediate stay on a December 24, 2025, notification from the Directorate of Education (DoE), it pushed back two key dates.
The new deadline for private schools to establish mandatory fee regulation committees is now January 20, extended from the original date of January 10. Furthermore, the last date for school managements to submit their proposed fee structures to these committees has been moved to February 5 from January 25.
The New Fee Regulation Framework
The law introduces a structured, two-tier system aimed at bringing transparency to how private schools set their fees. At its core is the requirement for each private school to form a School-Level Fee Regulation Committee.
This committee will have a diverse composition, including:
- Representatives from the school management
- The principal
- Three teachers
- Five parents
- A nominee from the Directorate of Education (DoE)
To ensure a fair and transparent process, the members (excluding the principal and management reps) will be selected through a lottery system conducted in the presence of official observers. Once formed, these committees are tasked with examining fee proposals from school managements and must arrive at a decision within a strict 30-day window.
Legal Challenges and Arguments
The court has formally issued notices to the Lieutenant Governor and the Directorate of Education, seeking their replies to the batch of petitions. The petitions challenge not only the constitutional validity of the Act itself but also the DoE's December notification for the constitution of committees for the 2025-26 academic session.
Representing the petitioner group Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the notification was "bad in law." He contended that such an order, which effectively tweaks the provisions of an Act, could only be issued by the Lieutenant Governor, not solely by the DoE. The petitioners pleaded for a stay on the notification or, alternatively, an order preventing any coercive action against schools.
The DoE, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, maintained its stance that it had the authority to issue the notification. The directorate agreed to the court's suggestion for extending the compliance deadlines as an interim measure.
The bench, acknowledging the ongoing legal process, made it clear that any steps taken under the current notification will be subject to its final orders. This provides a layer of provisional security for the schools while the court examines the broader legal questions.
