School fee hike row: DPS Dwarka in Delhi expels 29 students, angry parents protest outside premises
Several students were denied entry into the premises of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka on Tuesday morning over non-payment of fees as angry parents protested outside the gates.
According to an Indian Express report, these students were among 29 expelled by the school, which cited legal provisions, with 'immediate effect' on May 9. However, parents have accused the school of 'mishandling children' and flouting a Delhi High Court order issued last month.
They also claimed bouncers were stationed at the gate. Parents also alleged that several students were sent back home in school buses without prior intimation, the report said.
Describing it as traumatic, one of the parents of a Class 11 student told the Indian Express, 'We were shocked when the school forcefully boarded our children into buses and sent them back home without any communication. We didn't know their whereabouts for a while. There was no sensitivity shown at all.'
Students at DPS Dwarka have been facing the fee hike issue for several years now. According to the report, in April, an eight-member inspection committee led by District Magistrate (Southwest) had flagged discriminatory practices against students at the school.
The students were barred from attending regular classes, were confined to a library, had restricted access to the canteen, were isolated from peers, and were closely monitored by guards during restroom visits, the report said.
The Indian Express report, citing emails sent to affected families on May 9, said that the school said that the students' names were being struck off the rolls due to 'non-payment of school fee" despite 'various reminders through monthly SMS, emails, telephonic calls, and final reminder/show cause notice.'
The report also said that the school justified the expulsions by citing Rule 35 of the Delhi Education Act and Rules (DSEAR), 1973. This rule states that schools can expel students on the grounds of non-payment of fees and other dues for 20 days after the last day for payment, or continued absence without leave for six consecutive days. It is also compulsory to issue a showcause notice to the guardian or parent before such an action.
The school's email also said, 'You are advised not to send your ward to the school. He/she shall not be permitted to enter the school premises. The RFID card of your ward has also been disabled and, if you send your ward to school despite his/her name being struck off from the school rolls, it shall be at your risk and consequence.'
The parents were asked to collect the transfer certificate of their wards from the administration department on May 13, between 2.30 pm to 3 pm, Indian Express said.
While the school principal did not respond to the Indian Express's request for comments, a source in the school said that a show cause notice had been issued to parents last December.
"A total of more than ₹ 1 lakh is outstanding from 130 students, and there has already been a loss of ₹ 6 crore because certain students have completed Class 12. How can we recover the money in such cases?' the IE report quoted the source as saying.
In fact, the source blamed the parents for misinterpreting the High Court order. 'The order is about how students are to be treated once inside the school — it doesn't stop us from expelling defaulters. Once a child is struck off the rolls, denying entry is not a violation,' the source added.
'The children are suffering because of their parents and the politics around it. We will not tolerate demonstrations outside the school gate.'
On April 16, the Delhi HC had slammed the school for their conduct, terming it 'shocking' and 'inhuman'. The bench had said that the school was treating students in a 'shabby and inhuman' way and suggested that the government criminally prosecute the principal for torture.
Justice Sachin Datta said the school, which was treating students like "chattel", deserved to be shut down, an ANI report said.
The high court had also stressed on placing some safeguards to ensure that students at DPS Dwarka were not "tortured" by the authority, which was running the institution merely as a "money making machine".
(With inputs from agencies)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business Standard
Tejashwi Yadav escapes unhurt as truck rams into his convoy, 3 injured
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and Bihar Leader of Opposition Tejashwi Yadav narrowly escaped a major accident when a speeding truck collided with his convoy on National Highway-22 near Goraul in Vaishali district in the early hours of Saturday. The incident left three of his security personnel injured. According to an Indian Express report, the incident occurred at around 1:30 am when Yadav was on his way back to Patna from a party function in Madhepura. The convoy had halted briefly for tea when a speeding truck rammed into the convoy vehicles parked ahead of Yadav's car. 'We had stopped for tea during our return journey. Suddenly, a truck veered off and hit some of the vehicles in the convoy—just five feet away from where I was standing. Three of our security personnel were injured,' Yadav told Indian Express. He said the vehicle was intercepted at the toll plaza ahead and detained by the administration. The injured personnel were taken to Sadar Hospital in Hajipur and are currently under medical care. Police detain truck driver, begin probe Vaishali Superintendent of Police Lalit Mohan Sharma confirmed that the truck driver and his helper have been arrested. 'Our preliminary investigation shows the truck first hit a Bolero before ramming into the convoy. So far, no evidence of alcohol consumption has been found,' Sharma said. Police have launched an investigation to determine the exact cause of the accident.
Hindustan Times
4 days 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.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC to DPS, Dwarka: Using bouncers to block students' entry over fees is ‘mental harassment'
New Delhi: Expressing strong disapproval of Delhi Public School, Dwarka's conduct in allegedly deploying bouncers to block students' entry over a fee dispute, Delhi High Court on Thursday termed the act of publicly shaming students for non-payment of fees as "mental harassment". A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta remarked, "This court is constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging "bouncers" to physically block the entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only a disregard for the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society. " The court was hearing a petition filed by parents of students who had been expelled last month for non-payment of fees. It was informed that the school later withdrew its expulsion orders following a directive from a coordinate bench, reinstating the affected students. The court emphasised that any form of public shaming or intimidation over financial issues, especially using force or coercive means, constitutes mental harassment and undermines a child's psychological well-being. "The use of bouncers fosters a climate of fear, humiliation, and exclusion, which is incompatible with the ethos of education," the bench stated. While noting that the school is entitled to charge reasonable for its operations—to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff, and provide a conducive learning environment—the court underlined that an educational institution cannot be equated with a commercial enterprise. "The driving force of a school—especially one managed by a reputed society—must be public welfare, nation-building, and holistic child development, not profit maximisation. The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise," the court observed. As the school had reinstated the students, the court said the petition had become largely moot. However, it directed that any future action under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, must be preceded by proper notice and an opportunity for the affected students or their guardians to respond.
