Exclusive| "No Need For 3-Tier Committees": CPI(M) Leader Ashok Agarwal On Delhi School Education Bill 2025 (image:x.com/socialjurist)
The Delhi Cabinet has cleared the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, following protests by parents against the arbitrary fee hikes by the private schools over the past several months. Now, the bill, after receiving the green signal from the legislature, will turn into an Act.
The cleared bill regulates fees in private and government-aided private schools and applies to all the 1,677 aided and unaided private schools, the Delhi CM Rekha Gupta said while addressing the media conference.
Whether the assurance received by the Delhi government through the recently cleared draft of the bill will create a real impact or not requires legal and technical understanding of the bill (however, the bill copy is not available yet).
To analyse the expected outcomes, design, and structure of the bill in solving the existing issue, the Timeline reached out to the Supreme Court and High Court Lawyer Ashok Agarwal, who has also contested the Delhi Assembly Election 2025 on the CPI(M) seat from Karawal Nagar.
Timeline: What was the need for the bill, and why was the bill brought in the first place?
Ashok Agarwal: There was a need for the bill to regulate fees in private schools. As private schools have a fundamental right to run schools, the regulation of fees could be done via a law. Otherwise, they can not be regulated. The Fee Regulation Act was needed.
The government also must check the commercialisation of education. In our country, education is the only field where commercialisation is prohibited, unlike other professions.
Similarly, regulatory acts were already in existence in the other 14 states. The first such bill was brought in Tamil Nadu in 2002, followed by Maharashtra in 2011, including Punjab, Gujarat, and UP. The Delhi bill must be 15th in the list of such states.
Timeline: What were the earlier provisions to regulate fees in private and government-aided private schools?
Ashok Agarwal: In Delhi, there was no law earlier to regulate fees in private schools. There was the Delhi School Education Act of 1973, which was challenged in 1998 under the Delhi Abhibhawak vs Union of India. That was challenged by us, and it was the first such case in India to challenge the arbitrary decision of private schools, following the fee hike instances after 1997. During that time, Delhi schools raised fees from 40 to 400 percent, which led to the eruption of nationwide protests by the parents.
Then, the Delhi High Court interpreted some of the provisions of the bill and described the 4 Legal pillars of school service i.e. philanthropic, community servicing, no profiting, and no commercialisation.
Community service means that the money which is taken from the students will be spent on children in school. However, we see that schools instead of spending the money on students are hoarding it to open new branches and schools. This goes against the community service pillar.
Also, the Delhi High Court said that this is the duty of the government to check the commercialisation of education. In such instances, the government has the authority to check the accounts of the school to verify the justification given by the school. If the government finds the fees unjustified, then it has the power to order to refund the fee.
Delhi High Court further directed not to charge fees on capital expenditures such as school buildings, labs, computers, etc. Schools were also not allowed to collect the depreciation fee on the capital goods.
The court also said that schools are free to increase the fees, but parents can complain to the government about the excessive fee hikes. The government then will check the accounts of the school by appointing Chartered Accountants and order refunds if unjustified accounts are found. In many instances, schools have refunded the fees.
In 2015, the Delhi School Fee Regulation Bill was brought to regulate the fee hikes in schools, however, the bill was not accepted due to its stringent clauses.
Timeline: As the government has decided to make three-tier committees to regulate the fee hike in schools in Delhi, what are the advantages and challenges of this move?
Ashok Agarwal: The three-tier committee was not needed; only a single committee was sufficient to check the accounts and make a decision. The 3-tier committee structure will rather complicate the matter. There will be 4 committees now, including the managing committee under the Delhi Education Act 1973.
Multiple layers of committees will further complicate the matter instead of solving the real issue, as the decisions at every level, including the dissent over the formation of the committee, can also be challenged. For instance, if the representation of the parents is found to be improper in the committee and a member of the committee goes to the High Court, which stays in its formation, then the whole purpose of the bill will be defeated.
The 3-tiers will complicate the process instead of bringing any concrete results.
Timeline: Would you like to mention the other provisions of the bill that require attention here?
Ashok Agarwal: One provision is good under the bill, which prohibits asking students to sit outside the classrooms or debarring them from attending classes. Schools can not take any coercive steps against students, such as making them sit in a library instead of attending classes. A fine of Rs 50,000 per student complaint will be imposed on the schools, and the fine will be doubled if the school does not submit it within 20 days.
But now the question is who will pay the fine imposed on schools in such cases. That fine will ultimately come from the parents. Instead, there must be a clause of jail term for the chairman or the director of the school.
Also, parents can appeal against the report to the state-level committee and review and give its decision. Even after approval from the state-level committee, if at least 15 percent of the parents are against the fee-hike proposal, they can file an appeal. The provision of 15 percent of parents to appeal against the decision also trivialises the matter, as the consensus generation among the parents is also a matter. Earlier, any individual parent could complain about the school’s arbitrary fee hikes.
Instead of the 3 committees, there must be only one committee headed by a retired High Court Judge, which was already suggested by the High Court in the 1998 judgment. A single-judge committee headed by Santosh Duggal had been formed and worked in the past. In 2011, the Justice Anil Dev committee was also formed after the rise in the 6th pay commission. Such a committee is well equipped to make any decision as it has experts. In states such as Tamil Nadu, single-level committees are present and working efficiently.
Whether the newly proposed 3-level structure will be able to work or not is still doubtful. Now, it looks more like a Diwani Mukadma (civil case) which takes 40-50 years to get resolved. And, also after so many committees the matter will ultimately brought to the High Court then the Division Bench, and then Supreme Court.
Instead of complicating the matter, it should be simple. In the 2007 judgment, the Supreme Court mentioned three important things: firstly, the fee must be justified, second, transparency and finally, accountability. However, the bill said to ensure these three things but the implementation is still unsure. We have to wait till it functions.
Also, there is no clarity over the selection procedure for parents’ representation in the bill. How the parents will be selected in the district committee and out of the so many schools, which parents will be represented in the district committee and on what basis is not clear from the bill. The presence of the school representative is a question.
Moreover, there is no clarity on the number, as the government has mentioned only 1677 schools, then what about the 800 schools that are recognized by the MCD?
The law is necessary to regulate the fees in schools, however, there are doubts about the bill. For instance, the current fee already collected from the students is not addressed by the bill. There must be only a single committee that is given full facility to run instead of having multiple committees.
Timeline: As the bill has been passed, does it need any amendments, and how can it be challenged if it does not serve the real purpose?
Ashok Agarwal: Sections under the bill can be changed after it is presented in the legislature for discussion. Also, the constructive criticism that is happening around can lead the house to debate the bill thoroughly and come up with a concrete act. The bill can be changed in the assembly and even before sending it to the assembly, it can be changed after considering the concerns raised.
If the government is serious about the exploitation and to check the commercialisation then, I believe that it must be reconsidered to give better outcomes.
