DPS Dwarka fee row continues, parents protest at Jantar Mantar & raise 5 demands
'Our children are being punished for the system's failure,' said a parent as hundreds gathered at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on Saturday in protest, amid a row over the fee hike by the Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka and alleged discrimination against students whose parents refused to comply.
Even as the Delhi High Court in May had ordered reinstatement of 102 students, directing submission of a 50% hiked fee, demonstrators on Saturday alleged that the school had not complied. However, sources in DPS Dwarka said that the students will be reinstated as per the court's order once the hiked fee is paid. 'Parents have been asked to clear dues as per the order,' an official said.
But parents have alleged that the school continues to harass them. 'They are not complying with the complete court order, and not refunding the extra amount charged… they are asking more than what the High Court order allowed,' said a parent.
Carrying placards and banners, the demonstrators laid out five key demands as the conflict continues: immediate reinstatement of all 32 affected students at DPS Dwarka without conditions; strict enforcement of DoE (Directorate of Education) and court directives; criminal proceedings against school management and security personnel for alleged child harassment; a time-bound review of the school's pending fee proposals or suspension of the responsible DoE officials; and audit reforms, including cancellation of licenses of any chartered accountants found complicit in financial irregularities.
Highlighting the emotional and academic distress families have faced, protest groups from over 20 other private schools in the city joined in solidarity, warning that unchecked fee hikes and unfair practices at one institution could set a dangerous precedent across the city.
In a statement on Saturday, the group of parents said that they have issued an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, the GNCTD Directorate of Education, and the Delhi government to ensure that private schools operate within the law and that no child is denied access to education or subjected to harassment over fee disputes.
The fee hike dispute in the Capital's schools has been a long-standing issue. Amid widespread demonstrations in the city, the Cabinet on June 10 approved the 'Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025'. Under this, private schools must obtain approval before any fee increase, establish three independent panels at the state, district, and school levels to review proposals, and require automatic refunds of any excess fees already collected.
This came in the backdrop of the DoE rejecting DPS Dwarka's proposed fee hike for the 2023–24 academic year and directing the school to refund any excess fees collected last May. Parents have alleged that, despite this order, the school again raised fees for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 sessions.
DPS Dwarka, for its part, has maintained that it issued show-cause notices to parents as early as December, and that over Rs 1 lakh remained outstanding from around 130 students, resulting in a loss of over Rs 6 crore when some students completed Class XII, an official had earlier told The Indian Express. The school had also previously rejected the parents' claims as 'false and frivolous.' In response, parents of 102 students from the school approached the Delhi High Court, challenging both the unauthorised fee increases and the expulsions that followed.
On May 16, the High Court orally indicated its inclination to stay the school's decision to expel 32 students for non-payment of unapproved fees, observing that DPS Dwarka had not followed Rule 35(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which requires prior notice and an opportunity to show cause. Further clarity came on May 30, when Justice Vikas Mahajan ordered DPS Dwarka to allow 102 affected students to continue attending classes provided their parents paid 50% of the increased portion of their 2024–25 fees, while still settling the regular fee in full.
The court affirmed that under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, the DoE holds the power to curb arbitrary or profiteering fee hikes. The next hearing is scheduled for August 28.
On June 5, the HC – while slamming the school for deploying bouncers to stop students from attending classes – made it clear that if a school seeks to act under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, it must first issue prior communication to the affected students or their guardians, specifying the date on which the action is proposed. The school must also provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action, the order stated.
Beyond the fee issue, on Saturday, parents pointed to an April DoE inspection report that documented alleged discriminatory practices at the school. According to the report, some students were confined to the library, barred from classrooms and the canteen, subjected to constant staff surveillance even during restroom visits, and in certain cases physically prevented from entering the premises by hired bouncers. Demonstrators described these measures as inhumane and a serious violation of child rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC grants 15-day interim bail to man accused in fake cancer drug case
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has recently granted 15 days interim bail to Lovee Narula, an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, for his alleged role in a syndicate distributing counterfeit anti-cancer drugs. The order was passed by the vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia on June 9. The bail was granted to allow Narula to take care of his critically ill mother and make necessary arrangements for her medical treatment. This includes MRI scans, consultations, hospitalisation, surgical procedures and rehabilitation. Narula was arrested in 2021 from Punjabi Bagh in West Delhi. According to police, he was involved in black-marketing of medicines and injections that were needed during the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Narula, who lives in Paschim Vihar, reportedly obtained these injections through his associate, Rahul, and sold one of them for Rs 3 lakh. During the court hearing, Advocate Amit Chadha, representing Narula, told the court that Narula is the only male family member available to care for his mother. 'Due to Applicant's non-availability, no substantive progress has been made in his mother's treatment and her health continues to deteriorate owing to the absence of necessary medical treatment,' he submitted.
Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Indian Express
DPS Dwarka fee row continues, parents protest at Jantar Mantar & raise 5 demands
'Our children are being punished for the system's failure,' said a parent as hundreds gathered at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on Saturday in protest, amid a row over the fee hike by the Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka and alleged discrimination against students whose parents refused to comply. Even as the Delhi High Court in May had ordered reinstatement of 102 students, directing submission of a 50% hiked fee, demonstrators on Saturday alleged that the school had not complied. However, sources in DPS Dwarka said that the students will be reinstated as per the court's order once the hiked fee is paid. 'Parents have been asked to clear dues as per the order,' an official said. But parents have alleged that the school continues to harass them. 'They are not complying with the complete court order, and not refunding the extra amount charged… they are asking more than what the High Court order allowed,' said a parent. Carrying placards and banners, the demonstrators laid out five key demands as the conflict continues: immediate reinstatement of all 32 affected students at DPS Dwarka without conditions; strict enforcement of DoE (Directorate of Education) and court directives; criminal proceedings against school management and security personnel for alleged child harassment; a time-bound review of the school's pending fee proposals or suspension of the responsible DoE officials; and audit reforms, including cancellation of licenses of any chartered accountants found complicit in financial irregularities. Highlighting the emotional and academic distress families have faced, protest groups from over 20 other private schools in the city joined in solidarity, warning that unchecked fee hikes and unfair practices at one institution could set a dangerous precedent across the city. In a statement on Saturday, the group of parents said that they have issued an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, the GNCTD Directorate of Education, and the Delhi government to ensure that private schools operate within the law and that no child is denied access to education or subjected to harassment over fee disputes. The fee hike dispute in the Capital's schools has been a long-standing issue. Amid widespread demonstrations in the city, the Cabinet on June 10 approved the 'Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Ordinance, 2025'. Under this, private schools must obtain approval before any fee increase, establish three independent panels at the state, district, and school levels to review proposals, and require automatic refunds of any excess fees already collected. This came in the backdrop of the DoE rejecting DPS Dwarka's proposed fee hike for the 2023–24 academic year and directing the school to refund any excess fees collected last May. Parents have alleged that, despite this order, the school again raised fees for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 sessions. DPS Dwarka, for its part, has maintained that it issued show-cause notices to parents as early as December, and that over Rs 1 lakh remained outstanding from around 130 students, resulting in a loss of over Rs 6 crore when some students completed Class XII, an official had earlier told The Indian Express. The school had also previously rejected the parents' claims as 'false and frivolous.' In response, parents of 102 students from the school approached the Delhi High Court, challenging both the unauthorised fee increases and the expulsions that followed. On May 16, the High Court orally indicated its inclination to stay the school's decision to expel 32 students for non-payment of unapproved fees, observing that DPS Dwarka had not followed Rule 35(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which requires prior notice and an opportunity to show cause. Further clarity came on May 30, when Justice Vikas Mahajan ordered DPS Dwarka to allow 102 affected students to continue attending classes provided their parents paid 50% of the increased portion of their 2024–25 fees, while still settling the regular fee in full. The court affirmed that under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, the DoE holds the power to curb arbitrary or profiteering fee hikes. The next hearing is scheduled for August 28. On June 5, the HC – while slamming the school for deploying bouncers to stop students from attending classes – made it clear that if a school seeks to act under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, it must first issue prior communication to the affected students or their guardians, specifying the date on which the action is proposed. The school must also provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action, the order stated. Beyond the fee issue, on Saturday, parents pointed to an April DoE inspection report that documented alleged discriminatory practices at the school. According to the report, some students were confined to the library, barred from classrooms and the canteen, subjected to constant staff surveillance even during restroom visits, and in certain cases physically prevented from entering the premises by hired bouncers. Demonstrators described these measures as inhumane and a serious violation of child rights.
The Hindu
21 hours ago
- The Hindu
How should sexual abuse survivors be treated?
The story so far: The Delhi High Court recently issued a series of guidelines to streamline procedures in hospitals handling Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) cases involving sexual assault survivors, after finding that miscommunication, and administrative lapses had resulted in the denial of timely medical care to a minor rape survivor. What was the case? Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the guidelines while adjudicating upon the plea of a 17-year-old rape survivor who had been taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, for medical examination and termination of pregnancy. Although accompanied by a police officer following the registration of an FIR, hospital authorities initially refused to conduct an ultrasound, citing the absence of identity documents. The matter was then referred to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which directed the hospital to proceed with the termination and submit a status report. However, the hospital continued to insist on identity proof and age verification through an ossification test. The ultrasound was eventually carried out after a CWC member personally intervened. By that time, the minor was found to be approximately 25 weeks and 4 days pregnant. The hospital then declined to convene a medical board, contending that a court order was required as the pregnancy appeared to exceed the 24-week statutory limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. Following the court's intervention, a seven-member medical board was finally constituted at AIIMS to assess the feasibility of terminating the pregnancy. After conducting an ultrasound, the board determined that the gestational age of the foetus was 23 weeks and 4 days, and that the survivor was physically and mentally fit to undergo the procedure. This contradicted the hospital's earlier record, which had put the gestational age at 25 weeks and 4 days. The court noted with anguish that no explanation was provided for this discrepancy. What directions were issued to hospitals? The court observed that when an investigating officer presents a sexual assault survivor for medical examination, along with the official case file and FIR details, separate identity verification may be dispensed with. It further stressed that in cases involving minors, procedural safeguards applicable to routine diagnostic cases should not be applied rigidly or mechanically. Justice Sharma directed that in all cases where a rape or sexual assault survivor is found to be pregnant, a comprehensive medical examination must be conducted without delay. In instances where the gestational age appears to exceed 24 weeks, hospital administrations were instructed to immediately constitute a medical board to conduct the necessary examination and submit a status report to the appropriate authorities without awaiting specific court orders. Hospitals were also directed to ensure that updated Standard Operating Procedures and relevant legal guidelines are readily accessible in both Emergency and Gynaecology Departments, and that duty doctors are regularly briefed and sensitised on their obligations under the MTP Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and other binding directives issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts. The court further mandated that quarterly training programmes be organised for doctors and medical staff in coordination with legal aid bodies such as the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC). Each government hospital was also directed to designate a nodal officer to oversee MTP cases and related medico-legal processes, serving as a single point of contact for the CWC, investigating officers, and the courts. Additionally, consent for MTP procedures was to be obtained from the survivor or her guardian, in a language they fully comprehend, such as Hindi or English. What was the Delhi police instructed to do? The court directed the Delhi Police to ensure that investigating officers handling POCSO and sexual assault cases undergo mandatory training every six months, with a focus on MTP procedures, court orders, and coordination with medical and welfare authorities. Certificates of completion are to be duly recorded in the officers' service files. Police officers were also instructed to ensure that sexual assault survivors are presented before the concerned doctor, hospital, or medical board at the earliest opportunity, along with all requisite case files. What were the guidelines issued earlier? On April 17, Justice Sharma issued guidelines for CWCs and the DHCLSC to prevent delays in such cases, while hearing a plea involving a minor sexual assault survivor seeking termination of a pregnancy beyond 27 weeks. She directed that whenever a minor survivor with a gestational age exceeding 24 weeks is referred by the CWC to a hospital for examination or termination, the CWC must immediately notify the DHCLSC. Upon receiving such information, the DHCLSC shall promptly assess the need for legal intervention, including approaching the competent court for permission to terminate the pregnancy, so as to avoid further delay. Earlier, in January 2023, the judge mandated that during the medical examination of a sexual assault survivor, a urine pregnancy test must be conducted. If the survivor is found pregnant and is an adult seeking termination, the investigating officer must ensure that she is presented before the medical board on the same day. State governments were also ordered to ensure that medical boards are constituted in the hospitals.
