The Patna High Court, while affirming the constitutionality of Bihar's Private Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2019 held that the government can regulate fees to prevent profiteering, and directed the state government to adopt the provisions of Rajasthan's Fees Regulation Act.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is an Association of private schools in Bihar, has expressed opposition to the state's fee regulation efforts as outlined in the Bihar Private Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2019. The instant writ petition has been preferred to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Act, claiming they exceed the bounds of legal authority. Additionally, the petition seeks to annul a notice dated November 8, 2019, from the Regional Deputy Director of the Education Department in Patna, which orders private schools in the Patna division to cap any fee increases at no more than 7% compared to the fees of the preceding academic year.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the 7% cap on school fee increases is arbitrary due to the lack of clear guidelines for the Fee Regulatory Committee (FRC) to follow when assessing fee requests from private schools. He suggested that the FRC's decision-making could benefit from considering factors like a school's location in rural or urban areas.
The Counsel criticized the FRC's broad discretion in setting fees, arguing this could unfairly impact private schools and compromise students' education despite parents' willingness to pay. He highlighted inconsistencies within Sections 4(4) and 4(5) of the legislation, pointing out their ambiguity. Furthermore, the Counsel claimed that the fee regulation violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing the absence of guidelines for the FRC and the lack of an appellate process.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the respondent countered by stating that the matter is res integra, referencing a judgment from a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Atulkumar Niranjanbhai Dave v. The State of Gujarat.
Observations of the Court:
The bench noted that the issue at hand was comprehensively addressed by the Supreme Court's verdict in the State of Rajasthan v. Indian School case [LL 2021 SC 240]. It observed that in the Indian School case, the Supreme Court discussed the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016, which established a School Level Fee Committee (SLFC) as an internal body within each school. The court highlighted that the management's fee proposal must be presented to the SLFC at least six months before the academic year begins, and fees could only be implemented with the SLFC's approval, which also had the authority to reassess and set fees anew.
The court further observed that unlike in Rajasthan, the legislation being challenged did not establish an SLFC within schools in Bihar. It pointed out the arguments from the Indian School case, where school management contended that including teachers in the committee could hinder proper administration due to potential alignment with parents' interests—a claim the court rejected.
Moreover, the court noted that both the Bihar and Rajasthan laws establish a system with original and appellate authorities to review school fee decisions, especially when increases exceed 7% from the previous year. Upon recognizing that the State Government had ample authority under the challenged act to formulate rules, which had not been done, the court directed the State Government to establish such rules. Until then, it stated that the fee determination factors should be adopted from the Rajasthan Act and its Rules.
The decision of the Court:
The court considering all the facts and circumstances, saw no grounds to overturn the legislation and thus dismissed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Association of Independent Schools Bihar & Anr vs. The State of Bihar & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 25418 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Mr. Prashant Sinha, Mr. Sanchit Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
