All private schools now under new fee regulation law, says Delhi education minister
Advt
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 on Friday.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 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 Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh, with double penalties if excess charges are not refunded, he said, according to an official statement.The Act 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 Act, 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. PTI>
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Have debt, but spending on capital creation: Goa CM Pramod Sawant
We have a debt but we are spending on capital creation, not revenue expenditure, said Goa CM Pramod Sawant Aditi Phadnis Listen to This Article Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant outlines property reforms, ease-of-business measures, debt management, and mining revival, while addressing welfare burdens, US tariff concerns, and ambitions for tourism and agri-exports. He speaks with Aditi Phadnis at Goa Sadan in New Delhi. Edited excerpts: You must be a happy man today! Yesterday (Monday) Parliament approved reservation in Goa's Assembly for the Scheduled Tribes … Yes, we're happy. Tribals represent around 10 per cent of Goa's population and there was no reservation for them. Now four seats in the Assembly will be kept for them.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
BJP MLC slams cow vigilantes, says anti-slaughter Act is against farmers
Days after Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar held a meeting with top police officials on the growing menace of gaurakshaks (self-styled cow vigilantes), ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLC and farmer leader Sadabhau Khot on Sunday said that the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2015, that prevents the slaughter of cow, bulls and bullocks is against farmers. Speaking to The Indian Express, Khot said, 'Let's be very clear. No farmer would part ways with productive cows. Dairy is a supplementary business of lakhs of farmers in the state. The earning from this is now being spent on taking care of unproductive animals as transfer of these animals is not only banned but under threat from these so-called gaurakshaks. The Act (against cow slaughter) is actually turning against farmers…' About cow vigilantism in the state, he said, 'These gaurakshaks resort to extortion from genuine farmers and traders, bringing the transport of animals to a complete standstill.' Khot, a farmer leader from western Maharashtra's Sangli district, said that as a farmer leader he feels that if the present act (to prevent cow slaughter) threatens the livelihood of farmers, then it should be 'torn apart'. 'This (the act) is not even helping desi cows as those are getting replaced by Jersey cows. The transfer of newer breeds from different states has totally stopped due to fear of these cow vigilantes. The so-called gaushalas (cow shelters promoted by the state government) should pay the market price to farmers for unproductive cows and must come forward to rescue the farmers,' he said, adding that he was 'ready to pay any price' for his stand. Last week, The Indian Express had reported that Deputy Chief Minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Ajit Pawar held a meeting with top police officials in the state over the demands raised by the Qureishi community, which has been complaining against cow vigilantes who allegedly beat up and extort money from animal traders. Following the meeting, state police issued a circular, clarifying that private individuals have no authority to inspect vehicles that transport animals but only police can act against them. Terming the circular issued by Maharashtra police an eyewash, Maharashtra Congress spokesperson Sachin Sawant said, 'The circular says that only police can take action against illegal animal trade. But it does not say what action will be taken against the private individuals if they are take law in their hands? The majority of these so called cow vigilantes are linked to BJP and RSS and this issue is used for the politics of polarisation.'
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Constitutional validity does not mean desirability, ex-CJI Khanna tells one nation, one election panel
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election Bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna, however, said arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure might be raised about the constitutional amendment Bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the Bill. Justice Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined a few other former CJIs in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill. He said the Bill conferred "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an Assembly poll could not be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Indirect President's rule Justice Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the Bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, was a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Justice Khanna said there was a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or High Courts uphold constitutional validity, it was a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision was not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" Bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the Bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
