Action Committee Unaided Recognised … vs Honble Lt. Governor & Anr on 28 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com Delhi High Court
Action Committee Unaided Recognised … vs Honble Lt. Governor & Anr on 28 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 27.02.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 28.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 122/2026
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNISED
PRIVATE SCHOOLS .....Petitioner
Versus
HONBLE LT. GOVERNOR & ANR. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1824/2026
THE FORUM OF MINORITY SCHOOLS .....Petitioner
Versus
LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1845/2026
FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY
EDUCATION FOR ALL .....Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1908/2026 & CM APPL. 12571/2026
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY .....Petitioner
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT. OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1910/2026
ROHINI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY THROUGH SH. R.N.
JINDAL CHAIRMAN OF PETITIONER SOCIETY.....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 1 of 34
15:29:25
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI .....Respondent
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2012/2026, CM APPL. 11867/2026, CM APPL.
11957/2026 & CM APPL. 11958/2026
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNISED
PRIVATE SCHOOLS .....Petitioner
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR & ANR. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2087/2026
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS .....Petitioner
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2481/2026 & CM APPL. 12057/2026
RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND ORS.....Petitioners
Versus
LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Gupta, Ms. Tripti
Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Siddharth Arora & Ms. Sugandh
Shahi, Advocates in W.P.(C) 122/2026.
Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal,
Mr. Varun Mudgal, Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Akshat Singh & Mr. Joe
Sebastian, Advocates in W.P.(C) 1824/2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 2 of 34
15:29:25
Ms. Geetika Panwar, Ms. Vedanta Varma, Mr. Arjun Garg & Mr.
Ishaan Sharma, Advocates in W.P.(C) 1845/2026.
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh
& Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta, Advocates in W.P.(C) 1908/2026.
Mr. Namit Suri, Mr. Rameezuddin Raja, Ms. Tanya Sharma & Ms. P.
Geetanjali, Advocates in W.P.(C) 1910/2026.
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Gupta, Ms. Tripti
Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Siddharth Arora & Ms. Sugandh
Shahi, Advocates in W.P.(C) 2012/2026.
Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Ishita Pandey & Ms. Yogita, Advocates in
W.P.(C) 2087/2026.
Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal,
Mr. Varun Mudgal, Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Akshat Singh & Mr. Joe
Sebastian, Advocates in W.P.(C) 2481/2026.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG with 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, Advocates with
Mr. Rajpal Singh, Deputy Director of Education, GNCTD and Mr.
Rajiv Tawar, OSD, Litigation, DOE, GNCTD.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht & Ms. Khushboo Mittal, Advocates for
GNCTD.
Ms. Bhavya Jain, Advocate for the Impleaders in CM No.1257/2026
in W.P.(C) No.1908/2026.
Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate for Impleader in W.P.(C) 2012/2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 3 of 34
15:29:25
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CM No. 8901/2026 in W.P.(C) 122/2026
1. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.2012/2026 along with CM No.9843/2026
seeking the same relief as prayed in the present Application. Accordingly,
the present Application is disposed of having become infructuous.
CM No. 8828/2026 in W.P.(C) 1824/2026
CM No. 8924/2026 in W.P.(C) 1845/2026
CM No. 9273/2026 in W.P.(C) 1908/2026
CM No. 9277/2026 in W.P.(C) 1910/2026
CM No. 9843/2026 in W.P.(C) 2012/2026
CM No.10225/2026 in W.P.(C) 2087/2026
CM No.12056/2026 in W.P.(C) 2481/2026
2. This batch of Petitions has been filed challenging the Notification-
cum-order dated 01.02.2026, namely the Delhi School Education (Removal
of Difficulties) Order, 2026 (“Notification”) issued by the Respondents in
exercise of the power under Section 21 of the Delhi School Education
(Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 (“Act”) to
remove difficulties arising in the implementation of the provisions relating
to the constitution of the committees under the Act and the Delhi School
Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Rules, 2025
(“Rules”) on the ground of the same being arbitrary, unconstitutional and
illegal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 4 of 34
15:29:25
3. This common Judgement decides the Applications seeking stay of the
operation and implementation of the Notification during the pendency and
final disposal of the present batch of Petitions seeking quashing of the
Notification.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. The brief factual matrix for filing of the present Petitions is as under:
4.1 The Parliament has enacted Delhi School Education Act, 1973
(“DSEA, 1973”) dealing with establishment, functioning,
governance, and regulation of school education in Delhi,
including the fees fixation and regulation by the schools in
Delhi.
4.2 With an objective of bringing about transparency in the matter
of fixation, regulation, and collection of fee by schools in the
National Capital Territory of Delhi and to supplement the
provisions of DSEA, 1973, the Act was enacted and upon
receiving the assent of the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi, the Act was published in the Delhi Gazette on
14.08.2025. The Act came into force on 10.12.2025, when the
Rules were notified under Section 19 of the Act.
4.3 On 24.12.2025, the Director of Education issued the order
(“Order”) operationalising the Act and the Rules for the
Academic Session 2025-26 and directing mandatory
constitution of School Level Fee Regulation Committee
(“SLFRC”) for compliance with the statutory regime of the ActSignature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 5 of 34
15:29:25
and the Rules.
4.4 Being aggrieved by the various provision of the Act, the Rules
and the Order, the Petitioners have filed the present Petitions
before this Court challenging the same, which are pending.
4.5 This Court, vide order dated 08.01.2026 passed in the said
Petitions, as an interim measure, provided that any exercise
undertaken in terms of the Order shall be subject to further
orders, which would be passed in the said Petitions and also
extended the time for constitution of SLFRC till 05.02.2026.
4.6 The Petitioners challenged the order dated 08.01.2026 passed
by this Court before the Supreme Court on 19.01.2026. During
the pendency of the said Petitions before the Supreme Court,
the Respondents issued the Notification on 01.02.2026.
4.7 Vide order dated 02.02.2026, which was modified by way of
order dated 04.02.2026, the Petitions filed by the Petitioners
before the Supreme Court were disposed of in view of the
Notification issued on 01.02.2026 with clarification that the Act
and the Rules shall not be implemented for the Academic Year
2025-26. It was observed that the challenge to the Notification,
if any, will be considered by this Court on its own merits.
4.8 Accordingly, the Petitioners have filed the present Petitions
challenging the Notification in addition to earlier the Petitions
filed challenging the Act, the Rules and the Order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 6 of 34
15:29:25
4.9 Vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in this batch of Petitions,
the same have been listed for final hearing on 12.03.2026 along
with the other batch of Petitions, which were already listed on
the said date.
4.10 As regards the present Applications seeking stay of the
operation and implementation of the Notification, the
Respondents were given time to file their consolidated
response, and the Applications were listed for hearing on
20.02.2026. In the meanwhile, it was provided that those
schools, who have not constituted the SLFRC shall not be
insisted upon to form the same till the next date of hearing.
4.11 The Directorate of Education (“DoE”) has filed a common
counter affidavit in response to the present Applications seeking
stay of the Notification on 16.02.2026 (“Counter Affidavit”).
The Parties were heard on the issue of granting stay of the
operation and implementation of the Notification during the
pendency of these Petitions on 20.02.2026, 24.02.2026,
25.02.2026, 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026, while interim
protection granted on 09.02.2026 was continued.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners have made the following
submissions:
5.1 The Notification is in direct conflict and contradiction with the
Act and the Rules and also ultra vires the Constitution of India,Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 7 of 34
15:29:25
1950 (“Constitution”). The Notification requires the
Petitioners to constitute SLFRC for a block of three academic
years starting from 2026-27 by 10.02.2026 in accordance with
Section 4 of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules and submit the
proposed fee structure by 24.02.2026, however, the same is in
direct conflict with Section 4(1)(b) and Section 5(2) of the Act,
which provide that the SLFRC shall be constituted not later
than 15th July of each academic year and the management of the
school shall submit the proposed fee structure for the next block
of three academic years by 31st July of the current academic
year. Therefore, for Academic Year 2026-27, the SLFRC
should have been constituted by 31.07.2025, however, since the
Act and the Rules were notified and brought into force on
10.12.2025, no SLFRC was constituted and, hence, no fee
proposal could have been submitted for a block of three years
commencing with effect from Academic Year 2026-27.
5.2 Clause 3 of the Notification starts with a non-obstante clause
thereby over-riding the Act and the Rules and making the
provisions of the Act and the Rules redundant. The Notification
has been issued in terms of the power to remove difficulties as
provided under Section 21 of the Act, which specifically
provides that such power shall be exercised to do anything not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, which appears to be
necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the
difficulty. Therefore, the non-obstante clause in Clause 3 of theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 8 of 34
15:29:25
Notification is beyond the power to remove the difficulty as the
Notification is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
5.3 The Notification has brought the fee charged by the Petitioners
for Academic Year 2025-26 within the scope of the Act and the
Rules despite the statement made before the Supreme Court
that, at present, the Act and the Rules shall not be made
applicable to the Academic Year 2025-26.
5.4 The Petitioners are charging the fees that is determined and
implemented in accordance with the provisions of the DSEA,
1973, which was in force at the time of commencement of the
Academic Year 2025-26. Therefore, there is no reason for
subjecting the fee structure of the Academic Year 2025-26 to
any examination or scrutiny. Therefore, it is an occupied field
and there was no scope for issuing the Notification for
regulating the fees for the Academic Year 2025-26.
5.5 The stand taken by the DoE in the Counter Affidavit that the fee
needs to be fixed prior to 01.04.2026, before the start of the
Academic Year 2026-27, is unworkable given the timeline
stipulated under the Act and the Rules for formulation of the
SLFRC for fixing of the fees.
5.6 The Act and the Rules are challenged on inter alia ground that
the requirement of unanimous approval of the proposed fee by
SLFRC is unconstitutional. Therefore, unless the challenge to
the Act and the Rules is decided, the constitution of SLFRC
cannot be insisted upon.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 9 of 34
15:29:25
5.7 Even otherwise, the timelines proposed under the Notification
cannot be completed before 01.04.2026. When the matter is
listed for final hearing on 12.03.2026, no purpose would be
served to compel the Petitioners to formulate SLFRC during the
pendency of the Petitions.
5.8 The Respondents have accepted that the timelines could not
have been on the dates later than those fixed under the Act and
the Rules. However, by fixing the dates in the Notification for
approval of the fee for the Academic Year 2026-27, the
Respondents have acted beyond the provisions of the Act. The
Act and the Rules provide that the fee is to be fixed in the
previous academic year to ensure that the fee fixation and
regulation exercise, including the appeal is concluded and
contemplated well in advance of the start of the block of three
years. The plain reading of Section 5(2) of the Act provides
that the proposed fee for the next block of three academic years
shall be submitted by the Management of the School to SLFRC
for its approval by 31st July of the current academic year.
Similarly, Rule 8 of the Rules stipulates that the Management
shall mandatorily submit its proposed fee structure for the
upcoming block of three academic years on or before 31st July
of the ongoing academic year. Accordingly, the Notification
fixing the dates contrary to the scheme of the Act and the Rules
is required to the stayed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 10 of 34
15:29:25
5.9 The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioners cannot
charge the fees from 01.04.2026 for the Academic Year 2026-
27 in absence of determination of the fees in terms of the Act is
contrary to the provisions of the Act as Section 3 of the Act
provides that the schools shall not charge the fees in excess of
the fees fixed or approved under the Act. Therefore, there is no
such provision under the Act that prohibits charging of any fees
from 01.04.2026 as wrongly submitted by the Respondents.
5.10 The requirement of Section 4(3) of the Act to include at least
one member belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes or socially or educationally backward classes of citizens
in the SLFRC is unworkable within a short period of time as
there is no data maintained by the schools with regard to the
caste or status of the parents of the students for fulfilling this
requirement.
5.11 Rule 4 of the Rules provides that the SLFRC will be constituted
by public draw of lots to be conducted within the school
premises to select five parent representatives that will require a
huge exercise to be undertaken for constitution of the SLFRC in
accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules, which is not possible
within the short period contemplated under the Notification as
many schools are centres for the classes 10th and 12th Board
Examinations.
5.12 Further, the preponement of the date of 15th July to 10th
February would deprive the parents of the students who would
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 11 of 34
15:29:25
be taking admission in the Academic Year 2026-27 as they
would not be able to participate in the constitution of the
SLFRC.
5.13 The SLFRC has duties and functions to scrutinize the fee
structure proposed by the school management for the block of
three academic years including critically examining fee
proposals and audited financials by the parent representatives.
In absence of any qualifications prescribed for selecting the
parent representatives, it will not be possible to expect them to
critically examine the audited financials for raising objections
to unjustified components. Furthermore, the audited financials
for the Financial Year 2025-26 will not be ready by 01.04.2026,
which is prerequisite for determining the fees for Academic
Year 2026-27. Hence, the timelines contemplated under the
Notification is entirely unworkable and unjustified.
5.14 As per Rule 9 of the Rules, every proposal for fee revision or
fixation submitted by the school management to the SLFRC
must be accompanied by a set of duly audited financial
statements including balance sheets, income and expenditure
accounts and cash flow statements for the last three financial
years. In absence of the audited financial statements for the
Financial Year 2025-26, Rule 9 of the Rules, which is
mandatory, cannot be complied with. Further, the schools will
not be able to undertake financial planning for the next three
academic years in absence of audited financial statements. This
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 12 of 34
15:29:25
will cause grave prejudice to the Petitioners as the fee fixed
shall be applicable for the next three academic years without
any proper planning of the payment of staff salaries,
infrastructure development and existing contractual
commitments resulting in administrative uncertainty and
paralysis.
5.15 Although, the Counter Affidavit states that the Notification was
formulated to remove the difficulty faced with respect to the
timeline for fixing the fees for the block of three academic years
starting from Academic Year 2026-27 to prevent profiteering
and charging exorbitant fees by the schools, there was no basis
for issuing the Notification for removing the difficulties as the
provisions of the Notification are amending the provisions of
the Act, which is impermissible. The legislations cannot be
permitted to be amended by the Executive. The Act having
been notified and published on 10.12.2025, the same cannot be
permitted to be amended by the Executive through the
Notification.
5.16 In Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC
765, the Supreme Court has held that the Executive has very
limited power to make minor adaptation and peripheral
adjustments in the statutes for making its implementation
effective, without touching its substance. That is why “removal
of difficulty clause”, once frowned upon and nicknamed as
“Henry VIII Clause” in scornful commemoration of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 13 of 34
15:29:25
absolutist ways in which that English King got “difficulties” in
enforcing in autocratic will removed through the
instrumentality of a servile Parliament, now finds acceptance as
a practical necessity, in several Indian statutes of post-
independence era.
5.17 In Lachmi Narain & Ors. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC
953, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“70.Taking into consideration all these matters, the
legislature has, in its judgment solemnly incorporated in the
statute, fixed the period of the requisite notice as “not less
than three months” and willed this obligation to be absolute.
The span of notice was thus the essence of the legislative
mandate. The necessity of notice and the span of notice both
are integral to the scheme of the provision. The sub-section
cannot therefore be split up into essential and non-essential
components, the whole of it being mandatory. The rule
in Raza Buland Sugar Co. case [AIR 1965 SC 895] has
therefore no application.
71. Thus Section 6(2) embodies a determination of
legislative policy and its formulation as an absolute rule of
conduct which could be diluted, changed or amended only by
the legislature in the exercise of its essential legislative
function which could not, as held in Re Delhi Laws Act [AIR
1965 SC 895] and Rajnarain Singh case be delegated to the
Government.
72. For these reasons we are of opinion that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the
impugned notification was outside the authority of the
Central Government as a delegate under Section 2 of the
Laws Act.”
5.18 In State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, (2022) 16
SCC 318, the Supreme Court has held that:
“56.The State Government chose the incorrect path under
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 14 of 34
15:29:25
Section 60 by misusing the “removal of difficulty clause” to
usurp the power of the Chancellor to make the appointment.
A Government cannot misuse the “removal of difficulty
clause” to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to
statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be
antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power
granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral
adjustments in a statute for making its implementation
effective, to sidestep the provisions of the statute altogether
would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
57. Accordingly, the High Court in our view was justified in
coming to the conclusion that “in the guise of removing the
difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential
provisions of the Act.”
5.19 In view of the above decisions, the Notification being
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, deserves to be
quashed as in the guise of removal of the difficulty by way of
the Notification, the Respondents have changed the entire
scheme of the Act by changing the mandatory timelines.
5.20 There is no presumption under any law for the time being in
force that the private schools are commercialising and
profiteering. The fees fixed by the Schools under DSEA, 1973
cannot be called unapproved fees as National Education Policy
is not the first document mandating curbing of
commercialization and profiteering, which are even otherwise
prohibited in law. In case the operation and implementation of
the Notification is not stayed, the Petitioners will suffer
irreparable harm as the SLFRC will proceed to fix the fee for a
block of three academic years, in a complete takeover of
school’s autonomy in fee fixation and in plain derogation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 15 of 34
15:29:25
scheme and timelines under the Act.
5.21 In any event, the timelines fixed by the Notification are illusory
and can no longer be achieved by 01.04.2026 before the
commencement of the Academic Year 2026-27. If the stay is
not granted and the fee approval process under the Act is
implemented, it will cause grave prejudice as if the Petitions are
decided in favour of the Petitioners, resulting in higher fixation
of fees for Academic Year 2026-27, the parents would have to
bear the burden of sudden increase including the arrears. On the
other hand, if the stay is granted and if the challenge to the Act
and the Rules is rejected, the parents would receive refund of
any fee collected in excess of the approved fees.
5.22 In view of the above, this the fit case for grant of stay during
the pendency of the present Petition as the Petitioners have
strong prima facie case on merits and the balance of
convenience is also in favour of the Petitioners. In case, the stay
as prayed for is not granted, the Petitioner will suffer grave
prejudice and irreparable loss.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned Solicitor General has made the following
submissions:
6.1 The Act has been enacted with the objective to curb
commercialization and profiteering in education in accordance
with the National Education Policy, 2020 of the Government of
India. The Act and the Rules lay out a clear and detailedSignature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 16 of 34
15:29:25
scheme and structure through which fee is determined, which
further prevents exploitation of the students on account of
excessive school fees being charged.
6.2 The dates provided under the Act are not sacrosanct as second
proviso to Section 5 of the Act provides the flexibility for
changing the dates. By providing the revised timelines in the
Notification, the basic structure as well as pith and substance of
the Act has not been modified. The dates are only means to
achieving the objective of the Act that is provided in the
preamble of the Act which provides as under:
“An Act to bring about transparency in the matter of fixation,
regulation and collection of fee by schools in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi and matters connected therewith
and incidental thereto and to supplement the provisions of the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973.”
6.3 The difficulty which is sought to be removed by way of
Notification pertains to Section 3 of the Act which provides as
under:
“3.Prohibition of collection of excess fee
No school by itself or through any other means on its
behalf shall collect any fee in excess of the fee fixed or
approved under this Act.”
6.4 In view of the above provision, the Schools will not be able to
collect any fee in excess of the fee fixed or approved under the
Act. Accordingly, the Schools will not be able to charge any
fees with effect from 01.04.2026. Therefore, the Notification is
in fact in favour of the Schools as unless they violate Section 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 17 of 34
15:29:25
of the Act, they will not be able to collect any fee for the
Academic Year 2026-27.
6.5 In Re: Kerala Education Bill 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956, the
Supreme Court has held that the policy and purpose of a given
statute may be deduced from the long title and preamble
thereof.
6.6 In Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India,
(1981) 1 SCC 166, the Supreme Court has held that the
preamble to the Act ought to resolve interpretational doubts
arising out of the defective drafting in the provisions of the Act.
6.7 The Act has been enacted pursuant to the State’s obligations
under the Directive Principles contained in Articles 39(b),
39(c), 41, 45, and 46 of the Constitution. To the extent the Act
is traceable to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) of the Constitution, it is
immune from any challenge on account of violating a
Fundamental Right, in view of Article 31C of the Constitution.
6.8 In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR
1958 SC 731, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the Courts must presume that the legislature
understands the needs of its people. Similarly, in Hamdard
Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that presumption is
always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 18 of 34
15:29:25
6.9 Therefore, fixing dates for compliance of actions provided for
under the Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with the Act as
the outer timelines / dates provided for in the Act are not part or
basic feature of the substance of the Act.
6.10 The Petitioner cannot raise any contention with respect to
violation of the right to free trade and commerce under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution at this stage as the Act has neither
been struck down nor stayed and so, the Court has to proceed
on the basis of the Act being fully in force and operational.
Hence, the said contention of the Petitioner is not sustainable.
6.11 In the case of Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan, (2021) 10 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
decided that the autonomy of the school to fix the fees is not
absolute and the regulation of fees is not violative of Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
6.12 The intention of the Act was to regulate the fees from the
Academic Year 2025-26 onwards, which is evident from
Section 5(4) of the Act. Further, Section 3 of the Act provides
that no school shall collect any fees in excess of the fees fixed
or approved under this Act, which has come into force with
effect from 10.12.2025.
6.13 Therefore, to prevent an anomaly that unapproved fee is not
charged from 01.04.2026, the Act in second proviso to Section
5 of the Act provides a deeming fiction that the fee charged by
the schools as on 01.04.2025 shall be the proposed fee for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 19 of 34
15:29:25
purpose of approval / fixation in terms of Section 5 of the Act
for the Academic Year 2025-26. Therefore, the Notification
prevents the levy and collection of unapproved fee from
01.04.2026 and fixes a timeline for constitution of the SLFRC
to enable collection of only approved fees in terms of Section 3
of the Act and to prevent any hardship to any students on
account of rampant commercialization and profiteering by the
schools, which is the stated object of the Act.
6.14 As almost two thirds of the year was over and on the suggestion
of the Supreme Court, it was thought fit to keep the regulation
of the fee for the Academic Year 2025-26 pending subject to
the outcome of the Petitions and the Notification was passed to
ensure that approved / regulated fees is collected with effect
from 01.04.2026 for the Academic Year 2026-27 onwards in
consonance with the object, letter and spirit of the Act.
6.15 If the Act is not permitted to be implemented, it will have an
impact of defeating the object of the Act. Therefore, the fee has
to be approved / fixed as per the provisions of the Act by
01.04.2026. In case the Act would have been made applicable
to Academic Year 2025-26, there would have been no need for
passing of the Notification for removing the difficulties as once
such the fees would have been fixed in the beginning of the
Academic Year 2026-27, the schools would not be in a position
to levy exploitative fee until the fee for Academic Year 2026-27
is fixed / approved under the Act. In absence of process of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 20 of 34
15:29:25
fixing / approval of the fees under the Act, which is
contemplated by the beginning of the academic year, the
Schools cannot levy any fee in excess of the fee fixed /
approved under the Act as per Section 3 of the Act. Hence, the
process of fixing / approval of the fee under the Act has to be
completed by 01.04.2026.
6.16 Section 4(1)(b) of the Act requires the constitution of the
SLFRC ‘not later than 15th July’. There is no violence to the
language to the Act as the earlier timelines fixed by the
Notification is in consonance of the provisions of the Act,
which provide expression ‘by’ and ‘not later than’ 15th July.
The expression ‘by 31st July of the current year’ in Section 5(2)
of the Act cannot be read to mean ‘not prior to 31st July’ or
‘only on 31st July’. It is well settled that the expression ‘up to’
or ‘by’ permits the execution of such an action at any date prior
thereto. There is no statutory embargo in fixing timelines for
the purpose of the SLFRC prior to the date provided in the Act.
6.17 The argument that if the SLFRC is constituted prior to
01.04.2026, the parents of students, who will join after
01.04.2026 will be excluded from the SLFRC is completely
misconceived and contrary to the scheme of the Act as the
SLFRC is to fix fee for ‘next block of three years’ in terms of
Section 5(4) of the Act and, therefore, the parents of the
students for the second and third academic year shall always be
excluded from participating in the constitution of the SLFRC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 21 of 34
15:29:25
6.18 It is permissible for the removal of difficulties Notification to
slightly tinker with the Act to round of irregularities and
smoothen the joints or remove minor obscurities to make it
workable so long as it does not change, disfigure or do violence
to the basic structure and primary features of the Act.
6.19 In Madeva Upendra Sinai (supra) it has been held as under:
“39. To keep pace with the rapidly increasing responsibilities
of a welfare democratic State, the Legislature has to turn out a
plethora of hurried legislation, the volume of which is often
matched with its complexity. Under conditions of extreme
pressure, with heavy demands on the time of the Legislature
and the endurance and skill of the draftsman, it is well nigh
impossible to foresee all the circumstances to deal with which a
statute is enacted or to anticipate all the difficulties that might
arise in its working due to peculiar local conditions or even a
local law. This is particularly true when Parliament undertakes
legislation which gives a new dimension to socio-economic
activities of the State or extends the existing Indian laws to new
territories or areas freshly merged in the Union of India. In
order to obviate the necessity of approaching the Legislature
for removal of every difficulty, howsoever trivial,
encountered in the enforcement of a statute, by going through
the time-consuming amendatory process, the Legislature
sometimes thinks it expedient to invest the Executive with a very
limited power to make minor adaptations and peripheral
adjustments in the statute, for making its implementation
effective, without touching its substance. That is why the
“removal of difficulty clause”, once frowned upon and nick-
named as “Henry VIII clause” in scornful commemoration of
the absolutist ways in which that English King got the
“difficulties” in enforcing his autocratic will removed through
the instrumentality of a servile Parliament, now finds
acceptance as a practical necessity, in several Indian statutes
of post-independence era.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 22 of 34
15:29:25
6.20 In Union of India v. Gautam Khaitan, (2019) 10 SCC 108,
wherein it has been held that:
“19.It could therefore be seen, that the scheme of the Black
Money Act is to provide stringent measures for curbing the
menace of black money. Various offences have been defined
and stringent punishments have also been provided.
However, the scheme of the Black Money Act also provided
one time opportunity to make a declaration in respect of any
undisclosed asset located outside India and acquired from
income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act. Section
59 of the Black Money Act provided that such a declaration
was to be made on or after the date of commencement of the
Black Money Act, but on or before a date notified by the
Central Government in the Official Gazette. The date so
notified for making a declaration is 30-9-2015 whereas, the
date for payment of tax and penalty was notified to be 31-12-
2015. As such, an anomalous situation was arising if the
date under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money
Act was to be retained as 1-4-2016, then the period for
making a declaration would have been lapsed by 30-9-2015
and the date for payment of tax and penalty would have also
been lapsed by 31-12-2015. However, in view of the date
originally prescribed by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the
Black Money Act, such a declaration could have been made
only after 1-4-2016. Therefore, in order to give the benefit to
the assessee(s) and to remove the anomalies the date 1-7-
2015 has been substituted in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of
the Black Money Act, in place of 1-4-2016. This is done, so
as to enable the assessee desiring to take benefit of Section
59 of the Black Money Act. By doing so, the assessees, who
desired to take the benefit of one time opportunity, could
have made declaration prior to 30-9-2015 and paid the tax
and penalty prior to 31-12-2015.”
6.21 In Ramakant S. Bhattad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 1647, the High Court of Bombay
has held that minor adaptation and peripheral adjustments were
permissible for making the implementation of the statute
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 23 of 34
15:29:25
effective without touching its substance.
6.22 In view of the above, power of removal of difficulties can be
exercised even to tinker with the Act to round of angularities
and smoothen the joints to make it workable.
6.23 The operation of the Notification during the pendency of the
present Petitions would not cause any irreparable injury or loss
to the Petitioners as irrespective of when the fees for Academic
Year 2026-27 is fixed / approved the schools would eventually
be entitled to collect and retain only the fees fixed / approved
under the Act. Even if the schools collect an unregulated fee in
the beginning of an academic year, they will have to refund /
adjust any excess fee collected. Hence, there is no net financial
implication on the school because of the Notification.
Therefore, there is no irreparable loss or injury if the
Notification is not stayed. On the contrary, if the excessive
unregulated fees are charged by certain schools, it would cause
great financial hardship and irreparable loss to the students,
who may not be able to study in school on account of such
unregulated excessive fees being charged from 01.04.2026.
6.24 Accordingly, the balance of convenience lies in favour of
permitting the operation of the Notification during the pendency
of the Petitions.
6.25 The argument of the Petitioners that they are unable to comply
with the timelines as stipulated under the Notification is not
correct as under Section 17(3) of DSEA, 1973 in any case the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 24 of 34
15:29:25
Schools have to file a full statement of the fees before the
commencement of each academic session before the DoE.
Accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to the Schools if the
fees is fixed as per the timelines stipulated under the
Notification.
6.26 Therefore, the operation of the Notification during the
pendency of the present Petitions would not cause any
irreparable injury or loss to the Petitioners. Irrespective of
when the fee for Academic Year 2026-27 is fixed / approved,
the Schools would eventually be entitled to collect and retain
only the fees / approved under the Act.
6.27 The contention of the Petitioners that they do not have the
requisite data with regard to the castes and background of the
students is incorrect as the admission form of the Schools
clearly provides for category (SC/ST/OBC/General) and
therefore, each school has the requisite information for
complying with the requirement of Section 4(3) of the Act
which requires the SLFRC to include at least one member
belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or socially and
economically backward classes.
6.28 The net financial implications of the Notification on the
Schools are nil and no irreparable loss and injury would be
caused to the Schools if the same is permitted to operation
during the pendency of the present Petitions. On the contrary, if
the Notification is stayed, the Schools could than claim that the
same permits them to collect a fee as per their discretion which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 25 of 34
15:29:25
is often found to be excessive and unreasonable causing grave
harm to the students. Hence, the balance of convenience would
lie in favour of permitting the operation of the Notification
during the pendency of the present Petitions.
6.29 In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Liver Limited,
(1999) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held that the
considerations which weigh with the Court hearing the
applications / petitions for grant of injunctions includes whether
the grant of or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the
interest of general public which can or cannot be compensated
otherwise. Further, in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors. v.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., (1995) 3 SCC 33, it has
been held that the public interest is one of the material and
relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant
injunction.
6.30 Hence, the Application seeking stay be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE IMPLEADERS
7. Mr. Khagesh Jha, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Impleader,
Naya Samaj Parents Association has made the following submissions:
7.1 The parents are the most vulnerable class in the transition phase
of the Act where the admit card and results of children are
being withheld, which was not permissible even under the old
regime and DoE is not taking any action stating that they will
act under new Act, which has been deferred by their own.
7.2 The provision of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act has been skipped
by not providing the formation of the Parents TeacherSignature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 26 of 34
15:29:25
Association, which deprives the parents from filing appeal
under Section 7 of the Act. The Respondents are confused with
the transition phase and the interplay between the old regime
and the Act. Accordingly, this Court may clarify the position
that the protections available under the DSEA, 1973 shall
remain available to the students.
7.3 No prejudice shall be caused to the Petitioners in case the
SLFRC is constituted as the affected party is only the students.
Accordingly, no stay of the Notification should be granted.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
Petitioners as well as the Respondents. The Petitioners have filed the present
batch of Petitions challenging the Notification in addition to the Petitions
already filed challenging the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Order.
All the Petitions are tagged with each other and kept for final hearing on
12.03.2026. The only issue, which is required to be determined is as to
whether during the pendency of the Petitions, the Notification, which has
prescribed timelines for constitution of the SLFRC be implemented.
9. The Petitioners have contended that the timelines contemplated in the
Notification is unworkable since the Schools are not in a position to
constitute the SLFRC within the timelines as provided under the
Notification as there is no sufficient time provided to comply with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Petitioners have challenged the Act
on the ground that the requirement of all the members of the SLFRC to be
present to constitute quorum as well as for having unanimous decision at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 27 of 34
15:29:25
SLFRC is unworkable and unconstitutional as it will result in taking away
the legitimate right of the schools to determine the fees and permitting the
Respondents to fix the fees for all the Schools as there is no possibility to
have unanimous decision in the SLFRC between the members having
conflicting interest.
10. Further, the requirement to have at least one member from the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or socially or educationally backward
classes of citizens is also unworkable as the schools do not have the requisite
data to identify parents belonging to such categories and the time prescribed
for identifying such parents is not sufficient.
11. In addition, Rule 9 of the Rules provides that the school management
has to provide audited financial statements for their three previous financial
years for fixing the fee of the next three academic years. The timelines
proposed by the Notification do not permit the audited financial statements
for the Financial Year 2025-26 to be available for consideration of the
SLFRC as the same would not be ready prior to 01.04.2026.
12. Further, the Petitioners have contended that the Notification has
amended the provisions of the Act by changing the timelines for fixing the
fees for the next block of three academic years as there is no possibility of
fixing the fees during the academic year for the same academic year.
13. The Petitioners have contended that the fixation of fees is an occupied
filed under the DSEA, 1973 and, therefore, there is no need for urgency or
haste to implement the Act for the Academic Session 2026-27 by
accelerating the timelines by way of the Notification as the fees are already
regulated under the provisions of the DSEA, 1973.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 28 of 34
15:29:25
14. On the other hand, the learned Solicitor General for the Respondents
has submitted that the power to remove difficulties under Section 21 of the
Act permits the Respondents to issue the Notification. The difficulty that the
Notification seeks to remove is that as per Section 3 of the Act, the Schools
cannot collect the fees in excess of the fee fixed or approved under the Act.
It is the contention of the Respondents that Schools are charging excessive
and exorbitant fees and, therefore, there is an urgent need to fix the fees
prior to 01.04.2026 before the Academic Year 2026-27 commences.
Accordingly, the Notification has proposed the revised timelines as one-time
measure for fixing fees for the block of three academic years starting from
2026-27 in terms of Clause 3(2) of the Notification. As per the revised
timelines, the SLFRC was to be constituted by 11.02.2026 as per Section
4(1)(b) of the Act and the submission of the proposal was to be completed
by 25.02.2026 as per Section 5(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the approval of the
fee was to be completed by 27.03.2026 as per Section 5(4) of the Act.
15. We have, vide order dated 09.02.2026, observed that as an interim
measure the Schools who have not constituted the SLFRC shall not be
insisted upon to form the same till the next date of hearing, which continues
till the passing of this order.
16. Prima facie, it appears to us that the timelines as contemplated under
the Notification are unworkable as, if the SLFRC is constituted as per the
Notification, it will not be possible to complete the process of approval of
fee by 27.03.2026 in view of the time taken for hearing these Applications.
In any event, the timelines provide that the SLFRC constituted for each of
the Schools shall approve the fee proposed by the management by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 29 of 34
15:29:25
unanimous agreement of its members as per Section 5(4) of the Act.
17. The present Petitions have inter alia challenged Section 5(4) of the
Act on the ground that the requirement of unanimous agreement of the
members of the SLFRC is unconstitutional. In case the SLFRC is not able to
arrive at a unanimous agreement, the School Management has to refer the
matter to the District Fee Appellate Committee constituted under Section 6
of the Act for decision by the District Fee Appellate Committee within a
period of 15 days as per Section 5(7) of the Act.
18. However, the revised timeline for reference to the District Fee
Appellate Committee is not contemplated under the Notification. As per the
original timeline prescribed under the Act, the last date for referring the
matter of fee fixation / approval is prescribed as 30th September of the
previous academic year prior to the block of three academic years for which
the fee is to be fixed / approved. As there is no stipulation of the revised
timeline for reference and determination of the fees by District Fee
Appellate Committee in case of failure to arrive at a unanimous agreement
for approval of the proposed fee by the SLFRC in the Notification, it would
not be practicable to conclude the process of fixation / approval of the fees
in terms of the Act before 01.04.2026, which the stated intent and purpose
behind the issuance of the Notification.
19. Further, Section 5(7) of the Act provides that “…. During the
pendency of the reference before the District Fee Appellate Committee, the
Management shall collect the fee of the previous academic year.”
Accordingly, the Act contemplates collection of fees by the Schools during
the pendency of reference before the District Fee Appellate Committee.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 30 of 34
15:29:25
20. It is premature to presume that the SLFRC constituted by each of the
Schools shall be able to approve the proposed fee unanimously. In case any
of the SLFRC is unable to approve the proposed fee unanimously, the next
step is to refer the matter to District Fee Appellate Committee. However, the
Notification does not provide for the revised timeline for reference to the
District Fee Appellate Committee. At the same time, the Act permits the
Schools to collect the fee of the previous academic year during the pendency
of the reference before the District Fee Appellate Committee.
21. Accordingly, Section 3 of the Act is not a blanket prohibition for
collection of any fee. At best, Section 3 of the Act prohibits the collection of
excess fee once the fee is fixed or approved under the Act. Until the fee is
fixed / approved under the Act or is in process of getting fixed or approved,
the Schools are entitled to collect the fee of the previous academic year as
clearly stipulated under Section 5(7) of the Act.
22. Therefore, we are of prima facie opinion that there is no difficulty that
is required to be removed under Section 3 of the Act since there is no
complete ban for collection of the fees, but the prohibition is only limited to
collection of excess fee once the fee is fixed / approved under the Act. The
timelines contemplated under the Notification do not contemplate the entire
process of fixation / approval to be completed prior to 01.04.2026. As the
fee is unlikely to be fixed for each of the Schools prior to 01.04.2026 and the
Act provides that the Schools can collect the fee of the previous academic
year until the fee is fixed / approved under the provisions of the Act, no
prejudice would be caused if the Notification is put in abeyance till such
time the substantive challenge against the Act, the Rules, the order and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 31 of 34
15:29:25
Notification is decided by this Court.
23. Since the substantive challenge to the provisions of the Act, the Rules,
the Order, and the Notification as the same is subject matter of the main
Petitions, we would refrain from making any observations with regard to the
merits of the scope of the said challenge. Suffice is to state that having heard
the Parties, we are of the opinion that challenge to the Act and the Rules
requires careful consideration during the final hearing of these Petitions
commencing on 12.03.2026.
24. Further, considering the practical difficulty of non-availability of
audited financial statements prior to 01.04.2026, need to hold the physical
meeting of the parents for selection at the premises of the school where the
final examinations are ongoing during this month, show that the balance of
convenience is in favour of the Petitioner.
25. As regards the argument of the Petitioners that the Notification is
seeking to fix the fee for the Academic Year 2026-27 in the same year, the
same cannot be accepted as the Academic Year 2026-27 shall start from
01.04.2026 and the Notification contemplates fixing fees prior to the start of
academic year. Therefore, it would be considered as previous Academic
Year, i.e., 2025-26.
26. The contention of the Petitioners that the parents of the students, who
would be admitted after 01.04.2026, would not be able to participate, is also
not tenable as the Act contemplates fixing fee for block of three academic
years and accordingly, the parents of the students, who get admitted in the
second and third academic years out of the block of three years would, in
any case, not get an opportunity to participate in the constitution of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 32 of 34
15:29:25
SLFRC.
27. However, no irreparable loss will be caused to the students if the
Notification is stayed as any fees levied during the pendency of these
Petitions will be subject to outcome of these Petitions as the Schools will be
liable to refund / adjust the fees in case the same is charged in excess of the
fees that is ultimately fixed / approved in terms of the Act. Accordingly, the
purpose and object of the Act shall be achieved as in case any excess fees
than the fees fixed / approved as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules
is charged, the same shall be liable to be refunded / adjusted during the
course of the academic year. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if
fixation / approval of the fees is deferred during the pendency of these
Petitions since it will not cause any loss to the students.
28. In view of the above, it would be expedient to defer the constitution of
the SLFRC during the pendency of the Petitions, which are scheduled to be
heard finally on 12.03.2026. Accordingly, it is directed that during the
pendency of the present Petitions, the operation and implementation of
Clause 3(1) and (2) of the Notification shall remain in abeyance and the
Petitioners shall be entitled to collect the same fees for the Academic Year
2026-27 as was collected for the previous academic year till the fee is fixed /
approved in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, subject to
outcome of these Petitions as provided in Clause 3(6) of the Notification,
which reads as under:
“3. Removal of difficulties in constitution of Committees for a
block of three (3) academic years commencing from 2026-27.
*** *** ***
(6) Any exorbitant fee charged by schools for the academic yearSignature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 33 of 34
15:29:25
2025-26 shall be regulated and dealt with in accordance with law
subject to the final outcome of the proceedings challenging the vires
of the Act and the Rules presently pending before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
29. The present Applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
‘sms’/gsr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026 W.P.(C) 122/2026 & Connected Petitions Page 34 of 34
15:29:25
