
Bouncers at school to block entry of students reprehensible: HC pulls up DPS Dwarka amid fee hike row
Justice Sachin Datta recorded the observations in a verdict while deciding an application moved by parents of 32 students who were expelled by the school over non-payment of pending dues.
Noting that DPS Dwarka had subsequently withdrawn the expulsion order and had reinstated the students, making the application moot, the court observed, 'This court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging bouncers to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises.'
'Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society. 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 court also reiterated that a school 'cannot be equated with a purely commercial establishment' as a school is 'rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children.'
'The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise…The school, no doubt, is entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment. However, the school is different from a normal commercial establishment, since it carries with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students,' the court recorded.
The bench further underlined that in case the school decides to take any action in future under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which deals with striking off of students from the school's roll, it will issue a prior communication – specifically putting the students concerned or their parents or guardians to notice — as to the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls. The school is bound to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action, the court said.
Disposing of the application, the High Court emphasised that the parents concerned 'are obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court as regards payment of requisite fees to the school.'
Earlier on May 16, the High Court, observing that there is no embargo on schools hiking fees, had directed DPS Dwarka to allow the 102 students, whose parents had moved the court against the fee hike, to continue their studies, provided they deposit 50% of the hiked school fee for the 2024-25 academic year.

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


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Jaipur court acquits 13 in 25-yr-old double murder case
Jaipur: A special court in Jaipur handling statewide cases related to communal riots, Tuesday acquitted 13 individuals accused of a double murder committed nearly 25 years ago in Malpura town of Tonk district. The lower court's decision was based on the prosecution's failure to substantiate the charges against the accused with adequate evidence. The acquitted individuals, however, remain implicated in a second double-murder case from the same riots, the verdict of which is expected on Aug 24. In her judgment, the court's presiding officer Shweta Gupta stated, "The prosecution failed to prove the crime against the accused with proper evidence and investigation." The individuals acquitted included Ratanlal, Kishanlal, Ramswaroop, Devkaran, Shyoji Ram, Ramkishore, Sukhlal, Chhotu, Bachchraj, Kistur, Hiralal, Satyanarayan and Kishanlal. As per court docuements, Mohammad Ali and his nephew Mohammad Salim were murdered in Malpura on July 10, 2000, during a time of heightened communal tensions. The case was initiated after Shahzad, a relative of the victims, lodged a police report asserting that members of a particular community were responsible for the killings. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Secret Lives of the Romanovs — the Last Rulers of Imperial Russia! Learn More Undo Following this, a total of 22 individuals were charged. Out of the original 22 accused, eight had previously been discharged by the High Court in 2016, while one was classified as a minor, resulting in his case being referred to the Juvenile Court. The remaining 13 were acquitted on Tuesday, with the court granting them the benefit of doubt. Defense attorneys argued that the investigation conducted by the police was inadequate. VK Bali, one of the defense counsels, emphasised that the FIR was based on second-hand information and highlighted the imposition of Section 144 at the time of the incident, which raised doubts about the reliability of the purported eyewitnesses. Additionally, the defense pointed out the absence of the murder weapon and criticised the lack of a proper identification parade for the accused. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Girl injured after jumping from High Court building
The Madras High Court campus witnessed tense moments on Tuesday when a 15-year-old girl jumped from the first floor of the buildingafter the hearing of a case related to her custody. She was injured and immediately rushed to the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGH) in the High Court ambulance. The Neelankarai police in Chennai had secured the minor girl from Andaman islands and produced her before a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan initially on August 8, 2025 following a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by her biological father who had divorced her mother. When the case was taken up again on Tuesday, the girl told the court that she wanted to go with her mother who also resides in the Andamans. However, after perusing a confidential report submitted by the mediation centre, the judges felt that it would not be conducive and safe for her to go back to the Andamans. The judges directed the police to admit her to the Government Children's Home for Girls at Kellys in Chennai and then take her to the Institute of Mental Health at Kilpauk for psychiatric evaluation. They also called for the evaluation report in a sealed cover by August 26, 2025. After the hearing was over and the orders were passed, the police brought the girl outside the court hall and as they were walking on the corridors, she tried to escape and in the process, jumped from the first floor by holding on to the serial lights that had been put up for the Independence Day celebrations. However, she lost balance and fell down. 'Immediately, she was rushed to the government hospital in the High Court ambulance. It appears to be an accident that occurred during the bid to escape from the police and not a suicide attempt, although only a proper inquiry would reveal the real reason,' said a lawyer. (Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416, Sneha's suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050 and Speak2Us helpline at 9375493754)


The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Actor assault case: HC seeks report from trial court
The Kerala High Court has sought a report from the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge in response to a complaint alleging delay in concluding trial in the actor rape case in 2017. The final hearing in the case is now in progress before the sessions court. Ernakulam-based journalist M.R. Ajayan had filed a complaint in the High Court that there was undue delay in completing the trial. After the trial court framed charges against actor Dileep and nine others arrayed as accused, the trial commenced in January 2020. Five years into the trial, the case remained without a final verdict. In a reply dated August 8 to the complaint, the Registrar (District Judiciary) stated 'the petition is processed and a report has been called for from the District Judge, Ernakulam, in the matter.'