Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta issued an interim direction to Delhi Public School, Dwarka from engaging in discriminatory and coercive practices against students involved in a fee dispute. The Court held that any controversy regarding fee payment must be resolved under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and not through measures that subject students to indignity or segregation. The Court directed that affected students be permitted full access to classes and amenities and that appropriate inspections be conducted to ensure compliance.

The matter arose from a petition concerning allegations of discriminatory conduct by a private school in Delhi against students whose parents had contested a fee hike. The application sought restraint against coercive actions reportedly taken by the school, including barring affected students from classes and other facilities.

Also Read: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Disciplinary Action Against AoR and Assisting Advocate

According to the material placed on record, a joint inspection was conducted on 4 April 2025 by a committee chaired by the District Magistrate (South-West), along with senior officials from the Directorate of Education and academic representatives. The inspection was initiated following several complaints by parents concerning an alleged unauthorized fee hike, harassment of parents and students, and unethical practices at the school.

The inspection team arrived at the school at 11:00 AM and found that certain students had been confined to the library and denied access to regular classes, the canteen, and peer interaction since 20 March 2025. Statements from the students confirmed these restrictions, and similar accounts were gathered during visits to various classrooms. Students from classes 7, 9, and 10 corroborated the claims that peers with outstanding fees were barred from participation in class and isolated.

Further, the inspection report noted that these students were escorted by school guards even for basic activities such as using the washroom. The report observed that this practice had been ongoing and that the administration failed to provide written responses despite requests from the committee. The Vice Principal stated she would need approval from the school management before submitting a report, while the Librarian denied issuing any written statement. The Principal informed the inspection team that the matter of fee hike was sub judice and denied any discriminatory conduct.

The report concluded that, prima facie, students were being punished for alleged non-payment of increased fees, and such treatment constituted a serious concern. The committee recommended immediate reinstatement of affected students to regular classes, expedited resolution of the fee dispute by the Directorate of Education (DOE), and regular oversight by zonal authorities.

During the court hearing, the counsel for the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) submitted that a Show Cause Notice dated 8 April 2025 had already been served to the school under Section 24(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with Rule 56 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The school was asked to respond within one week, and the DOE was expected to adjudicate the matter promptly.

The petitioner school raised objections to the maintainability of the application and sought an opportunity to file a detailed reply. The Court permitted the school to file its response within two weeks and allowed the DOE to proceed with adjudication under the statutory framework.

Justice Sachin Datta recorded findings on the basis of the inspection report and submissions made by the parties. The Court stated in the order:

“The aforesaid inspection report reveals a very disturbing state of affairs inasmuch as in view of the subsisting controversy / dispute regarding the fees chargeable, the school is subjecting the concerned students, who are of tender age, to considerable indignity and harassment.”

It further noted:

“It is noticed that the inspection report reveals that when the inspection team reached the school at 11.00 AM on 04.04.2025, it found that certain students had been confined to the library, having not been allowed to attend regular classes. These students were also not allowed to visit the canteen of the school, and even interaction with their friends/ classmates was inhibited.”

Regarding the physical restrictions imposed on students, the Court stated: “Even for the purpose of going to the washroom, these students are escorted by guards/ attendants, and their free movement is restricted.”

Referring to the legal framework governing fee disputes, the Court observed:

“Any issue that the school may have as regards non-payment/ deficit payment of fees, has to be addressed in the framework of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the rules framed thereunder and in terms of direction/s that may be issued in the pending judicial proceedings as regards thereto.”

The Court stated: “The same cannot possibly serve as a justification for indulging in harassment of the students and/ or subject them to discrimination/ indignity within the school premises, as a device or means to recover any outstanding fees.”

The Court issued the following directions: “In the meantime, as an interim measure, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner school is restrained from indulging in the kind of conduct referred to in the inspection report viz.”

The Court prohibited several discriminatory practices against students who had not paid their fees. It directed that schools must not confine such students to the library, prevent them from attending classes, or segregate them from their peers. Furthermore, the Court barred schools from restricting these students' interactions with others, denying them access to school amenities, or subjecting them to any form of discrimination or prejudice.

The Court directed further: “The school will also allocate section/s to students who have been promoted to the next/ higher class; any controversy/ dispute as regards fees shall not be a ground for not doing so.”

Also Read: “Recovery from Individual Possession, Not a Commercial Quantity”: J&K High Court Says Section 37 NDPS Not Attracted, Grants Bail After 6 Months in Custody

It also instructed that:

“Any controversy/ dispute as regards the fees to be charged by the school shall be resolved in the manner contemplated under the statute and the rules framed thereunder, and/or in terms of direction/s issued in pending judicial proceedings, where the said issue is under consideration.”

The Court mandated: “The Respondent/ DOE and the concerned District Magistrate are directed to conduct regular inspections to ensure that the above directions are complied with.”

The matter was listed for further hearing on 5 May 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate; Mr. R.P. Singh and Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Abhaid Paraikh and Ms. Katyayni Anand, Advocates, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel and Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate for GNCTD, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC; Mr. Ankush Kapoor, Advocate with SI Mahesh Yadav, Mr. Prateek Dhankhar and Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocates Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Manoj Sharma, Ms. Aakanchha Jhunjhunwal, and Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocates

Case Title: Delhi Public School Dwarka v. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10434/2024
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]