
Parents, schools welcome fee bill in Delhi, hope for ‘clarity'
New Delhi
Parents across the Capital and school principals on Tuesday welcomed the Delhi government's Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, saying it would provide much-needed clarity on the issue of unauthorised fee hikes.
In a press conference on the day, Delhi education minister Ashish Sood said that schools will not be allowed to increase fees 'arbitrarily' hereon and that all decisions on fee hikes will be taken in consultation with parents, while the government retains the authority to regulate fees.
Minakshi Kushwaha, principal of Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar, said: 'To align with NEP 2020... needs investment, so schools hiking fee is not with bad intention and we hope that this bill will simplify the process.'
Mallika Preman, principal, Tagore International School, also welcomed the bill. 'The implementation of the bill should benefit all the stakeholders,' she said.
Richa Sharma, principal, Ramjas School RK Puram said that the school appreciated the Delhi government's intent to ensure transparency, but called for a balanced approach. 'The bill must consider rising operational costs and allow autonomy for quality education while protecting the interests of parents. Dialogue is key to consensus,' she said.
Sudha Acharya, principal of ITL Public School, Dwarka, said that given how fee hikes were being perceived among the public, the bill will increase awareness and participation of parents. 'Inclusion of women and one member of backward group in the committee is welcome,' she said.
Parents said the government's decision signals a positive and proactive step on their demands.
Neetu Takroo, whose ward studies in Maharaja Agrasen Public School, Pitampura, said: 'Introduction of women's participation in school-level fee regulation committee is a welcome move.'
Aparajita Gautam, president, Delhi Parents Association, said this has been a longstanding demand and that it was a positive step towards addressing it. 'The induction of members, especially parents, into the school-level committee will be a crucial move, as many issues can be solved with increased participation,' she said.
However, some parents remained sceptical, due to an array of factors.
Mahesh Mishra, whose child is a student of DPS Dwarka, said most schools in the city did not have democratically elected parent-teacher associations (PTAs). 'Without this crucial representation, the first-level committee proposed in the bill—tasked with reviewing fee structures—will be biased in favour of school management,' he said.
Nitin Gupta, whose ward studies in Srijan Public School, Model Town, said the ground reality was different and most private schools were blatantly violating guidelines issued by the directorate of education (DoE). 'In recent days, dozens of schools have been served notices, but no concrete action has been taken. Mere notices or minor penalties have no effect unless they are strictly enforced. Most schools consider these directives mere formalities and continue to defy them,' he said.
Sameer Bhalla, parent of a DPS Rohini student, said that the initial impression of the bill does not resolve the issue of fees already paid and harassment faced by students over the past few months. 'The government should state what actions they have taken against defaulting schools,' he said.
Supreme Court lawyer and education activist Ashok Agrawal said that the bill is going to open the floodgates for litigation. 'Initial impression of the bill is that it is complicated and has room for causing more confusion,' he said.
Hashtags

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


NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
"Trump Tariffs Will Cause Recession This Year": Elon Musk's Nastiest Digs
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. During a meeting, Trump addressed Musk's criticisms of his bill. Their feud escalated, impacting Tesla's stocks. Musk claimed Trump is linked to Epstein, while Trump accused Musk of self-interest. Musk warned tariffs could trigger a recession. During his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, US President Donald Trump was asked about his former close aide Elon Musk's criticism of his 'Big, Beautiful, Bill', to which he replied, 'He hasn't said anything about me that's bad,' Trump said. 'I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill.' Moments later, the feud on social media between Musk and Trump had actually reached a personal level, digressing from a difference of opinion on the bill. The fallout between the two has led to Tesla's stocks plunging over 14% on Thursday, wiping out nearly $150 billion in market value. It started with Musk responding 'Yes' to an X user who called for the president's impeachment. Musk Claims Trump Is In Epstein Files However, things went downhill from there. Musk at one point was accusing the Trump administration of withholding information about Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and child sex offender, because it involves Trump too. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote on X. 'Have a nice day, DJT!' He also added, 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' In a statement to CNN, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt labelled this claim 'an unfortunate episode.' She said, 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again.' Although Musk's allegation was made without evidence, there is a concern about lack of transparency. Musk Took Credit For Trump's Election Win Then, Musk also took a shot at Trump's election win. Trump had claimed that he would have won Pennsylvania even without Musk, but the tech billionaire says that Trump only won because he spent hundreds of millions of dollars and campaigned for Trump. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said. He later added, 'Such ingratitude.' Trump Said Musk Is Looking Out For His Own Interests Attacking Musk, Trump said that his criticism of the Big Beautiful Bill was less about excessive spending and more about his own interests - his personal business - Tesla. 'Elon's upset because we took the [electric vehicle] mandate and – you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'He only developed a problem when he found out I would cut the EV mandate,' Trump added. He said Musk 'went CRAZY' about the EV changes. Musk responded by saying that the bill can keep the EV cuts, but cut the spending. 'Whatever,' Musk said. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.' Trump Blamed Musk For Making A U-Turn Trump also blamed Musk for knowing everything right from the start and still reacting to the bill after he left the White House. 'I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem', Trump said in the Oval Office. 'But he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left.' Musk said that that was 'false' and wrote that 'this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Trump Threatened To Cut Musk's Government Contracts Continuing this very public feud, Trump notched it up a little higher and said that if lawmakers wanted to really save money, they should 'terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Replying to this, Musk posted on X, "In light of the President's statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.' NASA relies on the Dragon spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) under a contract worth roughly $4.9 billion. The capsule is the only US spacecraft capable of flying humans in orbit. Taking Dragon out of service would disrupt the ISS program, which involves dozens of countries under an international agreement signed over two decades ago. Russia's Soyuz system is the only other crewed spacecraft that sends astronauts to the ISS, Reuters reported. However, hours after stating that the company would begin decommissioning amid his feud with Trump, he said that his rocket company SpaceX will not decommission its Dragon spacecraft. Musk Attacked Trump's Tariffs Musk also warned that Trump's tariffs will be a cause for concern as it could plunge the country into a recession by the second half of the year. 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year' he wrote on X. Despite the ongoing attacks, Trump managed to steer the conversation back to the bill and wrote on Truth Social, 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given.' 'If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that', he added.


Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi: Minutes before court verdict, DPS Dwarka revokes student ousters
The Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka on Thursday informed the Delhi high court that it had withdrawn its order expelling 31 students for non-payment of hiked fees --just minutes before the court was to pronounce its verdict in the case. As justice Sachin Datta assembled to deliver his ruling on the parents' plea, the school's counsel submitted that the expulsion order had been withdrawn. The students' names had been reinstated, subject to parents paying fees in line with an earlier order by the high court on May 16. That order directed students to pay 50% of the increased fees for the 2024-25 session, pending a final decision by the UT's department of education (DoE). The school's lawyer also informed the bench that an affidavit to that effect had already been filed earlier in the week. Taking note of the submission, justice Datta noted that the immediate controversy had become moot. However, the bench laid down clear procedural safeguards for any future actions under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The school must issue prior communication specifying the proposed date for striking a student off the rolls and must give reasonable opportunity to the students or their guardians to show cause against such action, it directed. On Thursday, the court's judgment, released shortly after the matter was closed, expressed 'dismay' over the school's engagement of 'bouncers' to physically block students from entering the premises and called this 'a reprehensible practice' that has 'no place in an institute of learning.' The judgment further pointed out the psychological impact of such coercive tactics, noting: 'Public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child. The use of 'bouncers' fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school.' The court underlined the special status of educational institutions, emphasising that while schools charge fees to maintain infrastructure and staff, they 'cannot be equated with a pure commercial establishment.' It maintained: 'The driving force and character of a school (particularly a school such as the petitioner, which is run by a pre-eminent society) is rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children.' Highlighting the fiduciary and moral responsibilities schools bear towards their students, the judgment insisted on a compassionate and just approach to fee recovery without compromising students' dignity. The court development comes just a day after Delhi education minister Ashish Sood announced the government's intent to bring in an ordinance to implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, aimed at curbing arbitrary fee hikes by private institutions. The school struck off the names of the students on May 9 and barred them from entering the premises on May 13, triggering protests by dozens of parents. The move escalated an ongoing standoff over fee hikes, with many parents refusing to pay the revised structure without the Directorate of Education's (DoE) approval. In response, DoE passed an order on May 15 directing immediate reinstatement of the students. The controversy stems from DPS Dwarka's hike in fees for the 2025-26 academic session, which over 100 parents have challenged before the high court. They demanded that the school be directed to collect only DoE-approved fees for both current and future academic years. In their plea, the parents alleged that DPS Dwarka violated previous court orders prohibiting schools from harassing students over non-payment of unauthorised fees. They also claimed the school deployed bouncers to prevent students from entering, despite judicial restraint. On April 16, the high court rebuked the school for treating the students in a 'shabby and inhuman' manner by confining them to the library over failure to pay increased fees. Citing an inspection report by the district magistrate, the court had remarked that 'the school deserves to be shut down'. On its part, the school submitted that the action followed proper procedure of issuing show cause notice, mails, messages and phone calls after the unpaid dues of the students in question touched approximately ₹42 lakh till the academic year 2024-25. Senior advocate Pinaki Mishra, representing the school, submitted that fees collected from students was the only source of income for the school since it catered to various expenses, and the school was surviving with a deficit of ₹31 crores for over 10 years.


The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Call special session of Assembly to discuss fee hike: Atishi to CM
A day after Delhi Education Minister Ashish Sood announced that an ordinance would be brought in to regulate fees in private schools, senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Leader of the Opposition Atishi on Thursday wrote to Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, asking her to call a special session of the Assembly and debate over the issue. 'If the Bill is brought as an ordinance without any debate or public consultation, it will just confirm the suspicion of the people of Delhi that the BJP government is protecting the interests of private schools, not the parents,' wrote the former CM. The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Draft Bill, 2025, which aims to ensure transparency and regulation in the process of increasing fees, was cleared by the Delhi Cabinet in April. Ms. Atishi opined that the draft Bill should be referred to a committee comprising representatives from both the BJP and AAP to conduct a comprehensive consultation with stakeholders.