Strike Off Orders Withdrawn | Delhi High Court Terms Use Of Bouncers Reprehensible And Directs Conditional Reinstatement Of Students
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the actions taken by a private unaided school to exclude students due to alleged fee defaults were no longer sustainable in light of subsequent compliance with judicial directives. The Court recorded that the school had withdrawn its removal orders and restored students’ enrolment, contingent on interim fee payment directions previously issued. The application was thus disposed of. Any future disciplinary measures under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, must now involve prior notice and an opportunity to respond.
Parents of students from a private institution approached the High Court alleging non-compliance with an earlier interim order dated 16 April 2025. They stated that, despite the Court’s directions, the school issued communications on 9 May 2025 removing their children from the school register, citing non-payment of fees under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
These notifications barred the affected students from school premises, deactivated their RFID access cards, and advised parents to collect transfer certificates. According to the applicants, the school acted without issuing a reasoned order or any prior notice, causing disruption to students' academic progression, especially those preparing for Board examinations.
It was further alleged that the school employed private security to prevent students from entering the premises. Children were reportedly held inside a school bus for two hours before being sent home. The parents also claimed that the school refused to debit previously submitted cheques for fee payments approved by the Directorate of Education and declined fee submissions for May 2025.
On behalf of the school, senior counsel argued that parallel proceedings regarding the fee structure were already pending before a coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 6500/2025, Divya Mattey and Ors. vs. LG GNCTD and Ors., and the current proceedings should not result in contradictory outcomes. The school’s counsel highlighted its longstanding educational reputation and referred to its right to manage internal financial matters within regulatory boundaries.
The coordinate Bench, in its interim order dated 16 May 2025, had allowed parents to pay 50% of the increased fee amount for the academic year 2024–25 onward, pending final adjudication. The base fee remained fully payable. The Court also directed that any excess amounts collected for 2023–24 be adjusted. These payments were subject to future orders and contingent upon a final review by the Directorate of Education.
Following this order, the school filed an affidavit on 4 June 2025 confirming that it had reversed its earlier decision and readmitted the affected students, provided the parents complied with the prescribed interim fee structure.
A list of 31 students who had been excluded was presented, with outstanding dues totaling ₹41,16,719. The affidavit noted that two students had not been readmitted because their parents had voluntarily withdrawn them before the school’s original action. Two others applied for withdrawal after reinstatement orders were issued.
The school held that the restoration of enrolment was conditional upon compliance with the interim financial directive and that the final status of the students would depend on the outcome of related pending petitions.
Justice Sachin Datta recorded, “Since the impugned order/s whereby the name of 31 children had been struck off the rolls of the school, has been withdrawn and the concerned students have been reinstated, the controversy raised in the present application has become moot.”
The Bench clarified the procedural requirements for any future recourse to Rule 35: (i) issue a prior communication specifically putting the concerned students and/or their parents/guardians to notice as to the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls; (ii) give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action.
Addressing the reported deployment of security personnel, the Court remarked, “This Court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging ‘bouncers’ to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises.”
It stated, “Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school’s role in the society.”
The judgment recorded, “Public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well being and self-worth of a child.”
It added, “The use of ‘bouncers’ fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school.”
The Court reflected on the unique character of educational institutions: “A school though charges fees for the services rendered, cannot be equated with a pure commercial establishment... The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise.”
It also acknowledged operational realities: “The school, no doubt, is entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment.”
Justice Datta held that such institutions carry fiduciary and moral responsibilities beyond their financial considerations: “The school is different from a normal commercial establishment, inasmuch as it carries with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students.”
He also reminded parents of their responsibilities: “It must also be emphasised that the concerned parents are obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court as regards payment of requisite fees to the school.”
In conclusion, the Court observed: “It is hoped and expected that the petitioner school as also the applicants/parents will act with circumspection and cooperate with each other with a view to advance the interest of the concerned students.”
The Bench disposed of the matter noting that the earlier removal decisions had been withdrawn by the school. It acknowledged the affidavit confirming that enrolment was restored subject to compliance with the directive issued in the related writ petition concerning interim fee payments.
The Court stated: “In view of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) 6500/2025 titled as Divya Mattey and Ors. v. LG GNCTD and Ors, the petitioner has withdrawn the strike off orders dated 09.05.2025... and that the petitioner school has reinstated the names of the students subject to the parents depositing the outstanding fee dues in terms of the directions.”
The judgment confirmed that names of affected students were restored provisionally. It was also noted that the names of students voluntarily withdrawn or transferred were not reinstated.
The Bench explicitly directed that in future, before taking any exclusionary action under Rule 35, the school must notify parents in advance and offer an opportunity to respond.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta, Mr. Bhuwan Gugnani and Ms. Nupur, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhaid Parikh, Mr. Rishabh Dubey and Ms. Garima Sardana, Advs. for NCPCR; Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar, Ms. Akanchha Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Deepti Verma and Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advs. for parents; Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC and Ms. Avni Singh, Adv. for DOE; Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC, Mr. Kautilya Birat, GP
Case Title: Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 4901
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10434/2024
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
[Read/Download order]
