
Delhi HC allows DPS Dwarka students back in class, Orders 50% payment of hiked fees
The
Delhi High Court
has allowed students of Delhi Public School (DPS), Dwarka—whose names were struck off the rolls for non-payment of hiked fees—to continue attending classes, subject to partial fee payment.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, while hearing a petition filed by over 100 parents, directed that the students be readmitted on the condition that 50% of the increased fee for academic years 2024–25 onwards is deposited.
Background: Fee hike and expulsion row
The dispute traces back to May 9, when parents received email notifications informing them that their children's names had been removed from the rolls due to alleged non-payment of school fees. The action, according to the plea, followed the school's decision to raise monthly fees, first to ₹7,000 and then to ₹9,000.
Parents alleged coercive measures had been used in recent years to collect unapproved fees—including deploying bouncers at school gates.
The plea submitted to the court accused the school of violating land allotment conditions and claimed repeated non-compliance with directions issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE). The parents further questioned the legitimacy of the Delhi government's audit into the school's finances, calling it insufficient and lacking transparency.
They demanded both a forensic audit and an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, insisting the findings be made public before any fee hike is accepted.
Court's observations and interim arrangement
Justice Mahajan noted that while private unaided schools are permitted to determine fees based on projected expenses without prior DoE approval, such fee statements are ultimately subject to DoE's review. If found irrational or amounting to profiteering or commercialisation, DoE is empowered to reject the enhancement and order a rollback.
The court recorded that the DoE had already rejected the fee hike for the academic year 2023–24, and though the school challenged this order, no stay was granted. The interim relief sought by parents pertained to the subsequent academic years, including 2024–25 and the current year, 2025–26.
In its order, the court held that in the absence of a DoE decision rejecting the fee hike for these years, the parents are required to pay as per the school's submitted fee statements.
Accordingly, it directed that the students be allowed to continue in their respective classes on the condition that 50% of the hiked fee component is paid, while the base fee must be deposited in full. The court added that this arrangement will remain in force until the final disposal of the writ petition.
Pending matters and future proceedings
An urgent application was also filed by the petitioners, seeking instructions to ensure the school charges only DoE-approved fees for academic session 2025–26 and onwards.
The court issued notice on the main writ petition and scheduled the next hearing for August 28.
In a related development, a coordinate bench has reserved its judgment on a separate petition involving 32 students who were also expelled over non-payment of fees.
Policy context
This legal battle coincides with the Delhi government's proposal of a new law aimed at curbing arbitrary fee hikes in private schools. The draft legislation includes setting up fee regulation committees at the school, district, and state levels, with penalties for coercive actions like denying students entry to classrooms.
As the matter progresses in court, the outcome may have broader implications for fee regulation in Delhi's private education sector.
Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Paul Weiss Loses Ex-US Attorney Williams After Trump Deal
A former federal prosecutor who joined Paul Weiss in the month leading up to President Trump's second term left for Jenner & Block. New York-based partner Damian Williams will co-chair Jenner's litigation department and investigations, compliance and defense practice, according to the firm's announcement on Friday. He leaves a firm that struck a controversial deal with the Trump administration to avoid punitive sanctions to a firm that sued Trump to block a similar attack. Williams' departure comes only months after he re-joined Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. Paul Weiss announced Williams' arrival in January, and said he began his legal career as a Paul Weiss associate in 2009. 'Damian led the Southern District with excellence and integrity, and we are excited to welcome him to Jenner as part of our firm's long tradition of hiring former public servants who are zealous and effective advocates,' said Jenner's chair Tom Perrelli, former Associate US Attorney General. A representative for Paul Weiss thanked Williams for his contributions to the firm and wished him well. Paul Weiss roused controversy within the legal community as the first of nine firms to pledge a collective $940 million in free legal services to Trump-approved causes in exchange for avoiding punitive White House sanctions. The firm drew Trump's anger as the former professional home to Mark Pomerantz, who left the firm in 2021 to assist with the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation into Trump's finances. Along with other Trump-targeted firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, Jenner sued the Trump administration to reclaim security clearances and access to federal buildings that were threatened by a Trump executive order. Williams served as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2021 to 2024, when he left to join Paul Weiss. He oversaw the high-profile prosecutions of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and US Senator Bob Menendez. He was the first Black US Attorney in the history of the New York Southern District. Jenner's announcement said Williams will be a 'driving force' in the firm's litigation and white-collar work. 'Jenner & Block fearlessly advocates for its clients and provides outstanding strategic counsel through their most difficult challenges,' Williams said. 'I've seen firsthand how this firm expertly tackles the toughest cases and lives its values. I'm excited to join a team with an extraordinary depth of legal talent that doesn't shy away from hard fights—and delivers results that matter.' Paul Weiss has sustained a string of partner exits in the wake of the announcement of its deal with the Trump administration. Litigation department co-chair Karen Dunn, an outside counsel to Google and former campaign adviser to Kamala Harris, left with three partners last month to start a new litigation boutique. Dunn and colleagues have represented Apple Inc. and Facebook. Their exits followed Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary under President Barack Obama, and Steve Banks, who oversaw the firm's pro bono practice. Trump issued an executive order against the firm March 14, which he rescinded within a week when firm chairman Brad Karp said the firm would devote $40 million in free legal services to mutually-agreed upon causes during Trump's presidency. Karp's pledge was expanded upon by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom's March 28 deal with the president, which saw the firm promise $100 million in free legal services. Within a month, seven other firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, made similar pledges, some as high as $125 million. The firms, as part of their deals, also promised not to engage in 'illegal DEI' activities and commit to 'merit-based' hiring. Skadden also faced departures in the wake of its deal with Trump, one being Kathleen Rubenstein, executive director of the Skadden Foundation, resigning from the public interest law group. To contact the reporter on this story: Justin Henry in Washington DC at jhenry@ To contact the editors responsible for this story: Chris Opfer at copfer@ John Hughes at jhughes@ Alessandra Rafferty at arafferty@ This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Justice Varma case: Can't lodge FIR due to judicial order, says Dhankhar
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday said the government of the day is handicapped, as it can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order. Dhankhar's made the remarks in connection with the Justice Yashwant Varma episode. A fire broke out at Varma's residence in the national capital in March when he was a judge in the Delhi High Court, leading to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash from the outhouse. Dhankhar was interacting with a delegation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association here. The four members of the Bar association led by its president Sartej Singh Narula called on the vice-president at the Punjab Raj Bhavan, where Dhankhar arrived on Thursday evening before travelling to Shimla on Friday. Narula later said the matter pertaining to Justice Varma came up during general discussions. According to an official statement issued on Friday evening, the vice-president said, "The government of the day is handicapped. It can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order, which is more than three decades old. "It provides a virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered. "So I pose a question to myself, in deep pain, worried and concerned -- why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done at the earliest occasion". He added, "I have raised the issue. If a motion is brought to remove a judge, is that the answer? If a crime was committed, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy, why wasn't it punished?" "We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed. "Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can its report result in any outcome? Can the report, by itself, be actionable? The Constitution says the mechanism to remove a judge can be initiated either in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha," Dhankhar added. The vice-president said even the president of India or the governors have immunity from prosecution only till the time they are in office. "No other constitutional office enjoys this immunity, and that too while in office," he said. "I hope an FIR is filed," Dhankhar said. "Let us not destroy the idea of democracy. Let us not dilute our ethical standards. Let us not decimate integrity. A very painful incident happened mid-March in Delhi at the residence of a sitting judge. There was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, and illegal," he added. The incident appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days, he said. "Imagine what would have happened had it not appeared (in public domain). We don't know if it was an isolated incident. Whenever such a cash haul is made, the system has to find out whose money was it. What was the money trail? Where did the loose cash come from? Were big sharks involved? Did the money influence judicial work? All these questions bothered lawyers and common people alike," Dhankhar said. "Let the skeletons come out of the closet. Why was there no FIR? Why has there been no probe," Dhankhar asked. The vice-president added that he was happy that the Bar associations are picking up the issue, which will restore people's confidence. "If you remember the famous case -- Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1957 -- the gap between establishing the truth is sometimes very thin. The distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' is very thin. But this thin distance has to be negotiated by evidence of unimpeachable veracity. "I am not aware as to who is guilty. But one thing is for sure -- a crime of great enormity took place which shook the foundations of the judiciary and democracy. I hope the matter will be addressed," Dhankhar said. On Wednesday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving an impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". Rijiju told reporters that he has already initiated discussions with all the political parties to bring the motion in Parliament's Monsoon Session starting July 21 against Varma. Although Varma claimed ignorance about the cash discovery, a Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred Varma to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.


NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
"Children Deserve Compassion...": Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta On School Hiring Bouncers
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta condemned school hiring bouncers to intimidate parents and students, emphasizing children deserve compassion, not coercion. New Delhi: Amid "alarming" reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Friday asserted that children deserve compassion and not coercion. "There have been alarming reports of schools employing bouncers to intimidate parents and students. Education is a right, not a business." "Our children deserve compassion, not coercion. Schools must remain spaces of learning, values and nation-building," she said. The Delhi government has already announced that it will bring an ordinance to implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, to control arbitrary fee hikes by private schools. The chief minister's post on X came a day after the Delhi High Court called out Delhi Public School, Dwarka, for using "bouncers" to block the entry of students in its premises over a fee dispute. Noting such a practice had no place in an institution of learning, Justice Sachin Datta said public shaming and intimidation of a student due to financial default not only constitute mental harassment but also undermine the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child.