2004 (4) TMI 580 - SC - Indian Laws

How far and to what extent unaided private institutions can be subjected to regulations of education?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extent of regulation on unaided private institutions.
2. Interpretation and application of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
3. Autonomy of private unaided educational institutions in fee structure and administration.
4. Validity of the High Court's directions and the Duggal Committee's recommendations.
5. Utilization of surplus funds by private unaided schools.
6. Role of courts in regulating private unaided educational institutions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent of Regulation on Unaided Private Institutions:
The core question in these appeals is the extent to which unaided private institutions can be subjected to regulations. The Supreme Court emphasized that while private educational institutions have the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

2. Interpretation and Application of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973:
The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, regulates school education in Delhi, including government, minority, aided, and unaided private institutions. The Act provides for recognition (Section 4), a scheme of management (Section 5), payment of salaries (Section 10), and regulation of fees (Section 17). However, the Act does not provide specific regulations for the fee structure of unaided recognized schools, allowing them more autonomy.

3. Autonomy of Private Unaided Educational Institutions in Fee Structure and Administration:
The judgment referenced the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, which established that private unaided educational institutions should have autonomy in matters such as student admission, fee structure, and staff appointments. The Court reiterated that while these institutions should not engage in profiteering, they are entitled to generate reasonable surplus for the development and expansion of the institution.

4. Validity of the High Court's Directions and the Duggal Committee's Recommendations:
The High Court had issued directions based on the Unni Krishnan case, which were found to be beyond the legislative scheme of the Delhi School Education Act. The Duggal Committee's recommendations, which led to a circular dated 15th December 1999, were also deemed beyond the scope of the Act and the Rules. The Supreme Court held that any control or regulation must be imposed by legislative act, not by executive instruction.

5. Utilization of Surplus Funds by Private Unaided Schools:
Rule 177 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, allows unaided recognized schools to utilize surplus funds for capital or contingent expenditure, scholarships, establishment of other recognized schools, or assisting other educational institutions under the same management. The Court emphasized that these provisions should not be narrowly interpreted and that the utilization of surplus funds for establishing new schools is permissible.

6. Role of Courts in Regulating Private Unaided Educational Institutions:
The Supreme Court highlighted the limitations of judicial intervention in policy and public administration, noting that courts should not impose additional restrictions beyond what is provided in the statute. The Court stressed that the legislative scheme must be strictly implemented and enforced, and any further restrictions should be imposed by the legislature, not the judiciary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions in fee structure and administration, and invalidated the High Court's directions and the Duggal Committee's recommendations. The judgment reinforced the principle that while private educational institutions must not engage in profiteering, they are entitled to generate reasonable surplus for their development and expansion.