All private schools now under new fee regulation law, says Delhi education minister
Speaking at a "Parents' Town Hall" in Janakpuri, Sood said the Delhi School Education Bill, 2025, passed in the Monsoon Session of the Assembly, seeks to end arbitrary fee increases and ensure transparency in the fee fixation process.
About 200 parents attended the interaction, where the minister explained key provisions of the law, including penalties for non-compliance.
Schools that raise fees without government approval will face fines ranging from ₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh, with double penalties if excess charges are not refunded, he said, according to an official statement.
The bill also grants the Director of Education powers similar to those of a sub-divisional magistrate to ensure uniform action against violations, it stated.
Committees comprising parents, teachers, school management and government representatives will be involved in setting school fees, it read.
Sood said the new law closes a loophole in the 1973 rules, under which only 300 schools were covered for the fee regulation. "Now, all private schools in Delhi will come under the ambit of fee regulation," he said.
The minister criticised previous governments for failing to establish a transparent system for private school fee control.
"Those who claimed to have brought an education revolution did not make real improvements in government schools," he said, adding that many parents opted for private schools because of the poor state of public education facilities.
As per the bill, decisions on fee proposals must be made by school-level committees by July 15, district-level committees by July 30, and finalised by September. If no decision is reached within 45 days, the matter will be referred to an appellate committee.
Sood said the law was drafted after consultations with parents and education experts to curb the commercialisation of education and safeguard the interests of students.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Attacking RSS a ‘guarantee solution' for CM to save his chair: BJP
Bengaluru: Taking a dig at Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for attacking the RSS, the BJP leader R Ashoka has said it has become a 'guarantee solution' for the former to save his chair. The Leader of Opposition in the Assembly was reacting to Siddaramaiah targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for describing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as the 'world's biggest NGO', during his address to the nation from the Red Fort on the 79th Independence Day on Friday. Siddaramaiah had on Friday claimed the RSS is 'the world's biggest for-political-profit, for-hate, and most divisive organisation-unregistered, non-tax-paying, and conspiring to pit Indians against each other.' 'It's no surprise CM Siddaramaiah jumps at every chance to attack the RSS. It's not conviction - it's compulsion. It's not ideology - it's insurance. It's not belief - it's survival,' Ashoka said. In a post on 'X', he claimed that Siddaramaiah attacks the RSS to impress the Gandhi family and prove loyalty to the Congress high command, to keep the CM chair safe from the factional knives in his own party, and to distract from his government's failures, by demonising an organisation that serves the nation selflessly. 'Smear RSS = Please Gandhis + Protect Chair + Distract from Failures. A guarantee solution for CM Siddaramaiah's -- how to save the chair -- problem!' he added.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
All 1,700 private schools in city under new fee law: Ashish Sood
NEW DELHI: The Delhi government has brought all 1,700 private schools in the city under a new fee regulation law, with provisions for parental participation and veto power on fee hikes, Education Minister Ashish Sood said during an event with parents. Speaking at a 'Parents' Town Hall' in Janakpuri, Sood said the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, passed in the Monsoon Session, seeks to end arbitrary fee hikes and ensure transparency in the fee fixation process. About 200 parents attended the interaction, where the minister explained key provisions of the law, including penalties for non-compliance. Schools that raise fees without government approval will face fines ranging from `1 lakh to `10 lakh, with double penalties if excess charges are not refunded, he said, according to an official statement. The bill also grants the Director of Education powers similar to those of a sub-divisional magistrate to ensure uniform action against violations, it stated. Committees comprising parents, teachers, school management, and government representatives will be involved in deciding school fees, it added. Sood said the new law closes a loophole in the 1973 rules, under which only 300 schools were covered by fee regulation. 'Now, all private schools in Delhi will come under the ambit of fee regulation,' he said. The minister criticised previous governments for failing to establish a transparent system to regulate private school fees. 'Those who claimed to have brought an education revolution did not make real improvements in government schools,' he said, adding that many parents opted for private schools because of the poor state of public education facilities. As per the bill, decisions on fee proposals must be made by school-level committees by July 15, by district-level committees by July 30, and finalised by September. If no decision is reached within 45 days, the matter will be referred to an appellate committee. Sood said the law was drafted after consultations with parents and education experts to curb the commercialisation of education and safeguard the interests of students. However, under the banner of the United Voice of Parents Association, demonstrators expressed concern that the proposed legislation 'undermines existing safeguards and reduces transparency in the fee regulation process.' According to the parents association, the draft law permits previously unapproved fees and introduces a requirement of 15 per cent parental support to lodge complaints, making it harder for parents to raise concerns.
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Deadline for Prez, Guv will tilt power balance: Centre
New Delhi: Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.
