6 days ago
HC dismisses plea challenging validity of CG's school fee regulation
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the state's school fee regulation law and the rules framed under it. After considering the arguments, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the constitutional validity of a law cannot be questioned merely on the grounds of hardship caused to individuals, particularly when the rules are framed in the public interest.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petitions were filed by an association of private schools contesting the Chhattisgarh Non-Governmental Schools Fee Regulation Act, 2020, and the corresponding rules. The petitioners claimed the legislation violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
According to the association, fee regulation under the Act would pose serious financial challenges for unaided private schools that receive no govt aid.
They argued that CBSE-affiliated member schools rely entirely on fees collected from parents to cover salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff, infrastructure maintenance, and other statutory obligations.
However, the court cited the precedent set in R.N. Goyal v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others, reiterating that a rule serving the general public good cannot be invalidated solely because it causes inconvenience to a particular group or individual.
The court held that the 2020 Act and its rules are constitutionally sound and do not suffer from unreasonableness. "Consequently, we find no justification to strike down the Act or the rules, as they are neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," the bench stated.
Further, the court noted that the petitioner societies and associations cannot invoke Article 19, as its protections extend only to citizens.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Since the petitioners are not individuals but legal entities, they are not entitled to claim rights under Article 19(1). This, too, constituted a ground for dismissal.
The court emphasised once again that individual hardship does not warrant invalidation of legislation enacted in the wider public interest. It reiterated that where rules framed under Article 309 serve the general good, their impact on specific individuals or institutions cannot form a basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
In conclusion, the court found no merit in the challenge to the 2020 Act and rules. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
However, the judgment clarified that members of the petitioner associations are not barred from seeking relief through the appellate mechanism available under Section 13 of the 2020 Act, should they feel aggrieved.
