Section 3 Is Not A Blanket Ban On Fees: Delhi High Court Stays Removal of Difficulties Order Advancing Fee Fixation Timelines

“Until Fee Is Fixed Or Approved, Schools Can Collect Previous Year’s Fee” – In a significant interim order impacting private unaided schools across the capital, the Delhi High Court has kept in abeyance key portions of the Delhi School Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2026, holding prima facie that the accelerated timelines prescribed for constitution of School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) and approval of fees were “unworkable” and not necessitated by any statutory vacuum.

Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, in Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools & Ors. v. Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., stayed the operation of Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the Notification dated 01.02.2026, during the pendency of the writ petitions challenging the vires of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 and the Rules framed thereunder.

The Court permitted schools to collect the same fee for Academic Year 2026–27 as collected in the previous academic year, subject to refund or adjustment in accordance with the final outcome of the petitions.

The final hearing has been fixed from 12 March 2026.

Fee Regulation Regime Under Challenge

The controversy arises from the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, enacted to bring transparency in fixation, regulation and collection of fees by schools in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Act came into force on 10.12.2025 upon notification of the 2025 Rules.

The Act mandates constitution of School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) and prescribes a mechanism for approval of proposed fees for a block of three academic years. Section 5(4) requires unanimous approval of the proposed fee by the SLFRC, failing which the matter must be referred to the District Fee Appellate Committee under Section 5(7).

While challenges to the Act, Rules and an operational order dated 24.12.2025 were pending, the Government issued the Removal of Difficulties Order dated 01.02.2026 under Section 21 of the Act. The Notification advanced timelines for constitution of SLFRC and submission and approval of fee proposals for the block commencing 2026–27, requiring completion before 01.04.2026.

Schools challenged this Notification as arbitrary, ultra vires Section 21 and inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

“Timelines Are Unworkable” – Court Flags Impracticability of Completing Entire Statutory Process

The Bench prima facie accepted the schools’ contention that the revised timelines were incapable of compliance within the statutory framework.

The Court noted that even if SLFRCs were constituted immediately, unanimous approval under Section 5(4) could not be presumed. In case of disagreement, the matter must be referred to the District Fee Appellate Committee under Section 5(7).

Significantly, the Notification did not prescribe any revised timeline for such reference or adjudication by the Appellate Committee.

The Court observed that “it would not be practicable to conclude the process of fixation / approval of the fees in terms of the Act before 01.04.2026,” which was the stated object of the Notification.

Thus, the accelerated schedule was found prima facie unworkable within the statutory design.

“Section 3 Is Not A Blanket Prohibition” – No Immediate Statutory Vacuum

A central plank of the Government’s argument was that Section 3 of the 2025 Act prohibits collection of any fee “in excess of the fee fixed or approved under this Act,” and therefore fees had to be fixed before 01.04.2026.

The Court rejected this as an overbroad reading.

It held that Section 3 “is not a blanket prohibition for collection of any fee.” Rather, it “prohibits the collection of excess fee once the fee is fixed or approved under the Act.”

Crucially, the Bench relied on Section 5(7), which expressly provides that during pendency of reference before the District Fee Appellate Committee, “the Management shall collect the fee of the previous academic year.”

On this basis, the Court concluded that the Act itself contemplates collection of the previous year’s fee pending final fixation or approval.

Accordingly, the Bench held that “there is no difficulty that is required to be removed under Section 3 of the Act,” since the statute already provides a mechanism permitting collection of prior fees during the interim.

This observation strikes at the very foundation of invoking Section 21 (Removal of Difficulties) power.

Limited Scope of “Removal of Difficulties” – Prima Facie Doubts

While refraining from conclusively ruling on the vires of the Notification, the Court recorded a prima facie view that no urgency under Section 3 justified invocation of Section 21.

The Bench emphasised that since the Act permits collection of previous year’s fee until approval, there was no statutory vacuum necessitating extraordinary acceleration of timelines.

The substantive challenge to the scope of Section 21, including reliance on precedents such as Madeva Upendra Sinai, Lachmi Narain, and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, has been deferred to final hearing.

Practical Difficulties Weigh In Favour Of Interim Protection

The Court also considered pragmatic impediments:

The audited financial statements for FY 2025–26 would not be available before 01.04.2026, though Rule 9 mandates audited financials for the preceding three years.

Schools were conducting Board examinations for Classes 10 and 12, making it impractical to hold public draws of lots and physical meetings for SLFRC constitution.

These practical considerations tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners.

The Bench observed that “no irreparable loss will be caused to the students if the Notification is stayed,” since any excess fee collected would be subject to refund or adjustment depending on the final outcome.

Academic Year Argument Rejected; Parents’ Participation Objection Dismissed

The Court rejected the contention that the Notification sought to fix fees within the same academic year. Since Academic Year 2026–27 commences on 01.04.2026, fixation prior thereto would relate to the previous academic year 2025–26.

Similarly, the argument that newly admitted parents would be excluded from SLFRC participation was held untenable. The Act contemplates fixation for a three-year block, and parents admitted in the second and third years would, in any case, not participate in the original constitution.

Operative Directions

The Court directed that:

“During the pendency of the present Petitions, the operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and (2) of the Notification shall remain in abeyance.”

Schools are entitled to collect the same fees for Academic Year 2026–27 as collected in the previous academic year, subject to final adjudication and refund/adjustment mechanism under Clause 3(6) of the Notification.

The interim applications were disposed of accordingly.

The Delhi High Court’s interim order underscores judicial caution in permitting executive “removal of difficulties” powers to alter statutory timelines in a manner that may disrupt the legislative scheme. By clarifying that Section 3 is not an absolute embargo on fee collection and that the Act itself permits interim continuation of prior fees, the Court has temporarily preserved the pre-existing fee structure pending final adjudication on the constitutional validity of the 2025 Act and Rules.

The final hearing commencing 12 March 2026 is poised to determine the contours of fee regulation autonomy, the validity of unanimous approval under Section 5(4), and the permissible scope of executive intervention under Section 21.

Date of Decision: 28 February 2026