Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held that the Chhattisgarh Non-Government Schools Fees Regulation Act, 2020 and the Rules framed thereunder are constitutionally valid. The court concluded that the legislation is within the State’s legislative competence and does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Bench dismissed the petitions filed by associations of private unaided schools challenging the validity of the Act and the Rules, stating that the provisions constitute a permissible regulatory framework aimed at preventing profiteering and ensuring reasonable fee structures. The court directed that members of the petitioners’ associations retain the right to avail remedies under the statutory appellate provisions if aggrieved.

The petitions were filed by two registered societies representing private unaided schools in Chhattisgarh. Both associations contended that the Chhattisgarh Non-Government Schools Fees Regulation Act, 2020 (the Act) and the Chhattisgarh Non-Government Schools Fees Regulation Rules, 2020 (the Rules) were unconstitutional. They alleged violations of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and claimed inconsistency with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others.

Also Read: CJI Has Authority To Recommend Judge’s Removal | Supreme Court Says In-House Mechanism And Recommendation Are Constitutionally Valid

The petitioners stated that their member schools are affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, possess adequate facilities including playgrounds, laboratories, libraries, and extracurricular activity infrastructure, and operate without any financial assistance from the State. Their operations depend solely on fees paid by parents, which cover salaries, maintenance, statutory obligations, and other expenses. They argued that the Act imposes rigid controls over fee determination and administrative autonomy, including the formation of multiple fee committees, restrictions on annual fee increases, and mandatory record-keeping requirements.

The petitioners maintained that in accordance with T.M.A. Pai Foundation, unaided private schools are entitled to maximum autonomy over administration, including appointments, discipline, admissions, and fee fixation. They opposed provisions in the Act requiring submission of fee proposals to school fee committees, participation of guardians in fee fixation, and the 8% cap on annual fee increases.

The respondents, representing the State, countered that the Act is a regulatory measure designed to formalise consultations between school management and guardians in fee fixation, ensuring transparency and preventing exploitation. They asserted that education falls under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, giving the State legislative competence to enact the law. The State argued that no specific averments were made to demonstrate how the provisions violated Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). Citing T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education, and Modern Dental College and Research Centre, the State stated that regulation to prevent profiteering and ensure fairness is permissible. The State also submitted that the petitioners, being societies, are not 'citizens' within the meaning of Article 19 and cannot invoke its protection.

The Act of 2020 establishes a three-tier fee regulation mechanism: School Fees Committees, District Fees Committees, and a State Fees Committee. The State Fees Committee determines policy, while other committees fix fees accordingly. Schools must submit initial and revised fee proposals within specified timelines, supported by records and accounts. Guardian unions can submit representations, and committees can summon records and persons for hearings. Increases beyond 8% of existing fees are prohibited without approval.

The Rules of 2020 detail procedural requirements, including mandatory maintenance of fee registers, salary registers, stock registers, expenditure records, audit reports, admission and attendance registers, and other records as directed by the State Education Department.

The court recorded that there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation and that the burden to establish invalidity lies on the challenger. It cited Shayara Bano v. Union of India, stating that "manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle". The Bench referred to Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, noting that "the statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly" and that legislative enactments may be struck down only for lack of competence or contravention of fundamental rights.

The court observed that the petitioners did not challenge the State's legislative competence. It noted that education falls under Entry 25 of List III, granting the State power to legislate. Referring to Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, it recorded that specific pleadings are required to challenge a statute's validity and that in the absence of such pleadings, constitutional courts cannot interfere.

The Bench examined T.M.A. Pai Foundation and subsequent cases, noting that while private unaided institutions have autonomy, regulation to prevent capitation fees and profiteering is permissible. It quoted from Modern Dental College and Research Centre: "commercialisation is not permissible... the Government is equipped with necessary powers to take regulatory measures". The court recorded that regulatory frameworks, including fee committees, have been upheld in various cases, including Indian School, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan, where similar legislation in Rajasthan was found intra vires.

Also Read: Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Not Service On Assessee | Bombay High Court Condones Delay In Tax Appeals

The court further stated: "the right to admission or right to fix the fee guaranteed... is not taken away completely" and that the purpose of the Act is to ensure fees do not involve profiteering. The Bench rejected the Article 19(1)(g) challenge, noting that societies are not citizens and cannot invoke Article 19 rights, citing Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India.

The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the Act of 2020 and the Rules of 2020 are constitutionally valid. It stated: "we do not find any merit in the challenge to the Act of 2020 as also the Rules of 2020, as the same are neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India". The Bench directed that members of the petitioners’ associations are not barred from invoking the appellate remedy under Section 13 of the Act if aggrieved by any specific fee determination.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.

Case Title: Chhattisgarh Private School Management Association v. State of Chhattisgarh & connected matter

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:37885-DB

Case Number: WPC No. 253 of 2021 & WPC No. 294 of 2021

Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput