4 min readMay 23, 2026 01:53 PM ISTThe court stated that the DoE's orders “cannot be sustained in law, since such orders have been passed on the basis of a misconceived exercise conducted by the DoE" (File photo)The court, however, made it clear that “no school shall demand or recover from any parent or student any arrears of fee or other charges retrospectively for the past academic sessions.”Justice Anup Bhambhani has set aside the orders passed by the DoE rejecting schools’ fee-hike proposals by schools at the commencement of an academic session. The judge stated that the DoE’s orders “cannot be sustained in law, since such orders have been passed on the basis of a misconceived exercise conducted by the DoE demanding that the schools must seek prior approval for increasing their fee even at the commencement of an academic session.”Reaffirming judicial precedents and the existing law, the court observed that “no prior permission or sanction is required by a private, unaided, recognised school to increase its fee at the commencement of an academic session; and the only statutory obligation upon a school is that it must file its statement of proposed fee with the DoE before commencement of an academic session.” Such a DoE nod is only necessitated for a fee hike if the same is done during the ongoing academic year.Several schools had gone to court challenging the Directorate of Education’s rejection of the schools’ proposals for fee hikes from time to time, arbitrarily and unlawfully. The schools had contended that such refusals impinged on their right to run private, unaided, recognised schools with requisite financial autonomy. They argued that the DoE’s actions have resulted in serious deleterious consequences, leading to stagnation of development and growth of their institutions.Disposing of a batch of petitions, with some of these petitions dating back to as far as 2017, Justice Anup Bhambhani noted the litigation as “one such instance” where the court had to “merely to re-articulate and reiterate a settled legal position, since one of the parties had obstinately refused to acknowledge and comply with that position.”“…the sheer recalcitrance on the part of the DoE to comply with the settled position has compelled the schools to approach the court, yet again, since the DoE has persisted in its follies, and has, in a sense, simply refused to accept the law laid-down, not just by Co-ordinate Benches and by a Division Bench of this court, but also more than once by Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court…DoE has precipitated a huge round of litigation only by reason of its plain refusal to obey the law as comprised in the statute, and as authoritatively interpreted by the constitutional courts,” Justice Bhambhani observed in the 120-page order.While permitting the fee hike in a bid to balance the interests, including those of parents and students, the court observed, “Since the DoE has sat on fee-hike proposals for several years, the petitioner schools have been unable to legitimately increase their fee over several academic sessions, placing some of them in serious financial disarray. If, however, the pending fee-hike proposals, some of which relate back to the year 2016-17, are allowed to be implemented at this stage after lapse of several years, it would put an inordinate and unacceptable burden on the parents/students, who would have to pay arrears of fee for the past several years.”Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:delhischool fee hikeAdvertisementLoading Recommendations...Advertisement