SC issues notice on private schools on govt land hiking fees
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Director of Education (DoE), Government of Delhi, on a plea challenging the Delhi High Court's orders that permitted private unaided schools situated on government-allotted land to hike fees without prior approval from the education department.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, was hearing a special leave petition filed by Naya Samaj Parents Association, contesting two rulings of the Delhi High Court that upheld the autonomy of private schools in revising fee structures.
According to the petition, 'private unaided schools in Delhi have increased their fees multifold, in some cases by up to 100% and are initiating penal actions against students for non-payment, thereby creating confusion and panic among parents.'
The controversy stems from an interim order passed in April 2024 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools.
In this order, the court observed that, as per prevailing law, unaided recognised private schools are not required to seek prior permission from the DoE before raising their fees, regardless of land allotment clauses.
The order also stayed a circular issued by the DoE regulating fee proposals from unaided private schools. The petition before the Supreme Court specifically challenges paragraph 29 of this order.
Subsequently, in its final order dated April 8, 2025, the High Court's division bench dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the interim order, on the procedural ground that the petitioner was not a party in the original writ proceedings.
The petitioner, however, argues that this decision conflicts with previous rulings of both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. It cites the Justice For All vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi case, where the Delhi High Court held that the DoE has the authority under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to regulate fee hikes and prevent profiteering by unaided schools.
The petitioner also relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in the landmark Modern School vs Union of India case, which emphasised that private schools on DDA-allotted land must seek prior approval from the DoE before increasing tuition fees. In that case, the Apex Court directed the Director of Education to verify whether schools were complying with the terms of their land allotment and take action in case of violations.
A specific clause in the DDA's allotment letters, referred to by the Supreme Court, reads, 'The school shall not increase the rates of tuition fee without the prior sanction of the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration and shall follow the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act/Rules, 1973 and other instructions issued from time to time.'
In its ruling in Modern School, the Court had directed, 'The Director of Education shall examine the terms of allotment issued to schools and ensure compliance within three months. In case of non-compliance, appropriate steps shall be taken.'
The Supreme Court has now taken cognisance of the petitioner's concerns and issued a notice to the Delhi DoE for its response. The matter is expected to be heard in June. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court defers Batla House plea, declines stay on demolition
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the impending demolition of homes and shops in Delhi's Batla House area, observing that its earlier order of May 7 – directing action against unauthorised construction, did not warrant any interference at this stage. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, hearing a plea filed by over 40 residents, declined interim protection against the demolition drive being undertaken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department, but agreed to list the matter in July, once the court resumes full functioning after the summer vacation. 'It is our order and we have seen it… You take instructions if you would want us to simply adjourn this,' the bench told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the residents, while referring to the earlier direction of the apex court from May 7. 'We are telling you that we have seen the papers. We can adjourn it. That is all we can do,' said the bench, making it clear that the court was not inclined to examine the issue substantively during the summer vacation. Hegde urged the bench to at least clarify that no demolitions should be carried out in the interim. 'Let nothing happen in the meantime,' he said. But the court stood firm. 'You will be taking a risk if you want to argue this,' the bench warned, reiterating that it would not hear the matter during the vacation and asking Hegde to 'take instructions.' After consulting his clients, Hegde asked that the matter be listed in the week after the summer recess. The court agreed. The partial working schedule of the Supreme Court ends on July 13, after which regular hearings resume. Hegde informed the bench that the petitioners would approach the appropriate appellate authority to challenge the demolition notices. The dispute stems from a May 7 ruling by another bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which directed that unauthorised constructions outside the boundaries of colonies regularised under the 2019 Pradhan Mantri-Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana (PM-UDAY) be demolished. The order said residents should be given 'at least 15 days' notice' and allowed to 'adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.' Acting on the order, DDA issued eviction notices dated May 26, which were pasted on several buildings in Batla House. The notices, marked by large red Xs, stated: 'This building/structure has been found to be an illegal/unauthorised structure falling in khasra number 279, village Okhla, outside PMA-UDAY colony boundary… occupants are hereby directed to vacate the premises within 15 days… the demolition programme shall be carried out from 11-06-2025 without any further notice.' With the demolition set to begin just days before Eid-ul-Adha, anxiety has spread through the predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. Many residents, in their plea, said they have lived in the area for decades and view the notices as arbitrary and unjust. In their plea before the top court, residents argue that the 15-day notice was not meaningfully served. Instead of individual communication or clear deadlines, the notices were simply pasted on buildings, offering no scope for redress. They claim the demolition drive is arbitrary, illegal, and in breach of the protections under the PM-UDAY scheme. While DDA and the UP Irrigation Department claim the affected area lies outside the scheme's boundary, residents insist they qualify for regularisation or at the very least deserve a chance to be heard. The petitioners say they are legitimate homeowners with long-standing possession, and that no individualised assessment of legality was made before marking homes for demolition. The residents had first approached the Supreme Court on May 29. At the time, the court advised them to move Delhi High Court. But the petitioners pointed out that the authorities were relying on the Supreme Court's May 7 order to justify the imminent demolitions, leaving them with no choice but to return to the top court. The bench then directed the registry to list the matter this week. Batla House, part of the Jamia Nagar locality, has long been a densely populated working-class enclave. It first drew national attention in 2008 after a controversial police encounter resulted in the deaths of two alleged terrorists and a Delhi Police inspector. Now, the looming demolition has brought it back into the spotlight. With Monday's development, the matter now rests in limbo until July. Meanwhile, the 15-day notice period, expiring on June 10, leaves affected families facing an uncertain and anxious wait, coinciding with one of the year's biggest religious festivals.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Even as SC hears case, road from Haryana to Rajasthan for illegal mining rebuilt
Gurgaon: Between Supreme Court hearings and five months after the Haryana forest department razed it, an illegal road connecting Basai Meo in Nuh to Gadhaner in Rajasthan was rebuilt by miners. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was this 6km road, originally built in Oct 2024, that led the miners through the Aravali forests to a hillock in Nuh's Rava. TOI reported in Dec last year that the Rava hillock was blasted into pieces and the stones were then transported across state borders through the same road. The matter of illegal mining and construction of the road eventually reached the Supreme Court, which pulled up Haryana's chief secretary last month for failing to act against those violating environmental laws in the state. On Monday, the forest department blocked the road once again. "This is the same road that was illegally built last year under the pretext of village land consolidation," a forest official said, adding: "We have now blocked it again and filed an FIR against two villagers involved in its reconstruction. We have increased surveillance as well." The area where the road was built falls under sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which prohibits any construction in forests. It also violates Section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which bars construction in protected forests without approval of the central govt. The forest department official told TOI no such permissions were obtained. Experts said the road being carved through the Aravalis for a second time despite an ongoing case in the Supreme Court shows the impunity with which mining is carried out in the area. "The fact that a road is being carved through protected forest land while the matter is sub judice reflects blatant disregard for the rule of law. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It underscores a systemic failure in enforcement and a culture of impunity that emboldens violators. If such violations can occur under the court's watch, one can only imagine the unchecked damage happening elsewhere," said Debadityo Sinha, lead (climate and ecosystems) at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The matter first came to light in Oct 2024, when Basai Meo residents alleged that the road was illegally constructed on forest and farm lands, disrupting natural drainage system of the area. A month later, villagers filed a petition before SC, alleging that the road was built by mining mafia "in collusion" with officials. On the night of Dec 19, miners flattened the hillock in Rava, just 10km from Basai Meo. Locals said they had heard the blast and some eyewitnesses captured videos of it. TOI also reported about the incident on Dec 23. Forest officials believe mined stones from Rava were taken to Rajasthan's Gadhaner through this road. "Mining the Aravalis is banned in Nuh, but there is no such prohibition in Rajasthan. This allows the miners to sell the stones, used in the construction industry, after crossing the state borders," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist. The forest department, in Jan 2025, blocked the road to stop all illegal activities. It also ordered an FIR to be registered against three revenue officials for allowing this construction to take place in the Nuh village. The Supreme Court, hearing the petition, directed the central empowered committee (CEC) to investigate the allegations. CEC, in its report, confirmed the violations and recommended action against erring officials. Last month, Haryana's chief secretary filed an affidavit that said the state's forest department did not act against violations. The top court did not agree, and in its latest hearing on May 29, it pulled up the chief secretary for "passing the buck" to the forest department and not taking action against other officials. "It appears that (mining) mafia is strong enough to protect not only its members but also the officers of the state govt who acted in collusion with them," Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said. On Monday, environmentalists said repeated violations of norms in the Aravalis was alarming. "Aravalis are not just ancient hills, they are the lungs of northern India. Every illegal encroachment, every tree felled, is a blow to our future. Protecting them is not a choice, it is a necessity. Construction of a road through Aravalis is illegal and it also fragments the eco-sensitive zone," said Vaishali Rana, an activist.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Have law, history closed door on princely states' properties? SC to examine
If India's Constitution bars courts from adjudicating disputes arising from pre-Independence covenants, can erstwhile royal families like that of Jaipur ever reclaim their legacy properties? Or have time, law and history closed the door forever? These questions came into focus on Monday as the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether covenants signed between princely states and the Government of India before 1950 are amenable to judicial review even as Article 363 of the Constitution expressly keeps such matters out of the courts' jurisdiction . The legal challenge comes from the Jaipur royal family. Rajmata Padmini Devi, along with her daughter, Rajasthan deputy chief minister Diya Kumari, and grandson Maharaja Padmanabh Singh, moved the apex court against an April 17 ruling of the Rajasthan high court, which held that their civil suits, seeking possession and damages for prime Jaipur properties, were barred by Article 363. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AG Masih, while issuing notice on Monday, signalled willingness to engage with the nuanced constitutional debate, particularly the continuing relevance of Article 363 in the absence of its companion Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers and was repealed in 1972. With its admission, the case now becomes a pivotal test of how India navigates the legacy of its integration of over 500 princely states post-Independence. If the court finds Article 363 no longer an iron curtain, it could open the floodgates of historical claims, not just from Jaipur, but across former royal families of India. On the other hand, a reaffirmation of the constitutional bar would strengthen the finality of India's break from the royal past. Appearing for the Jaipur royals, senior advocate Harish Salve urged the Supreme Court to lift the constitutional veil and re-examine whether Article 363 still blocks judicial access in disputes involving princely covenants, particularly when the Union of India was not a party to the disputed agreement. The court, however, had a pointed question for Salve: 'How will you come out of Article 363?' Salve, assisted by senior counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, replied that Article 363 has multiple nuances and precedents. 'But the previous judgments did not answer whether Article 363 survives after deletion of Article 362. Both were part of the same package,' he added. Salve further contended that the 1949 Covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India per se, but by five Rajasthan rulers, with India acting merely as a guarantor. That distinction, he said, was vital to determining whether the bar under Article 363 even applies. The bench, however, expressed concern about the possible consequences of lifting this bar. 'If we agree with your submission, the entire city of Jaipur will be your property. All former rulers of Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur could reopen similar claims.' But Salve said: 'Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I am only arguing on the right to adjudicate. Ownership was 100% prior to the covenant. Nobody has a right to assert title over what belongs to the State but I must be allowed to argue that in court.' At this point, the court agreed to admit the matter for a hearing. The Rajasthan government's additional advocate general, Shiv Mangal Sharma, remained present during the hearing and accepted the notice on behalf of the state. He also undertook before the court that the issue will not be precipitated in so far as alienation of any property is concerned since the state respects the pendency of the matter before the highest court. The challenge stems from a sweeping April 17 judgment by the Rajasthan high court, which threw out four suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic heritage properties, including the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace. In a 50-page judgment, the high court ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from such covenants, citing the constitutional bar under Article 363. The court allowed the State's revision petitions and set aside lower court orders that had refused to reject the plaints under the civil procedure code (CPC). 'If law is clear and suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily to be rejected at the very threshold,' stated the judgment, citing apex court precedents. The high court found that the claims were inextricably linked to the rights and obligations flowing from the 1949 covenant, under which the state was granted perpetual use of certain royal properties for 'official purposes'. The royal family's suits had sought possession, injunctions, and mesne profits -- potentially running into crores, over several properties including those mentioned above. The royals claimed that the state had either abandoned their official use or was seeking to use them for commercial ventures like shopping malls or art galleries, violating the covenant's original purpose. However, the Rajasthan government argued that the suits were barred under Article 363, as they arose directly from a covenant between the ruler of Jaipur and the Government of India. The high court agreed. It held that even if the properties were in disrepair or misused, courts could not adjudicate such disputes due to the constitutional bar. The Jaipur royals are now hoping the Supreme Court will re-evaluate the legal architecture surrounding Article 363, especially after the 1972 repeal of Article 362, which earlier guaranteed privileges and dignities of former rulers. During Monday's hearing, Salve suggested that the constitutional bar in Article 363 was designed to protect political agreements in the early years of the Republic but cannot be a permanent barrier in civil disputes, especially when one of the original articles has been removed. The bench retorted: 'You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur should be yours.' Still, the court agreed to hear the case and issued notice to the state.
