Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (10) TMI 1265 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions against private unaided schools.
2. Applicability of Article 30(1) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Extent of judicial intervention in fee regulation.
4. Right to privacy concerning financial disclosures by schools.
5. Relief measures for fee concessions during the pandemic.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against Private Unaided Schools:
The court examined whether private unaided schools fall under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that private unaided schools performing public duties, such as imparting education, can be subject to writ jurisdiction. The court cited precedents indicating that the term "authority" under Article 226 must be interpreted broadly to include bodies performing public duties.

2. Applicability of Article 30(1) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The court addressed the objections raised by minority institutions under Article 30(1) and private unaided schools under Article 19(1)(g). It was determined that while these institutions have the right to administer their affairs, this right does not extend to profiteering. The court emphasized that educational institutions must be run on a non-profit basis, and any judicial scrutiny into fee structures to prevent profiteering does not violate these constitutional protections.

3. Extent of Judicial Intervention in Fee Regulation:
The court acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the resultant financial distress among parents. It was noted that schools have incurred lower operational costs due to the absence of physical classes. Consequently, the court issued directions for a 20% reduction in fees across the board for the specified period, with additional concessions to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The court also constituted a committee to adjudicate disputes regarding fee concessions.

4. Right to Privacy Concerning Financial Disclosures by Schools:
The court rejected the argument that requiring schools to disclose their financial statements violates the right to privacy. It was held that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute and does not preclude judicial scrutiny in cases of alleged profiteering by educational institutions. The court emphasized that financial transparency is necessary to ensure fairness in the fee concession process.

5. Relief Measures for Fee Concessions During the Pandemic:
The court issued detailed directions to provide relief to parents and guardians. These included:
- No fee increase for the financial year 2020-21.
- A minimum 20% fee reduction from April 2020 until the resumption of physical classes.
- Prohibition of non-essential charges for unused facilities.
- A cap on revenue over expenditure at 5% for the financial year 2020-21.
- Establishment of a committee to adjudicate disputes regarding further fee reductions or waivers.

The court clarified that these measures are temporary and specific to the pandemic situation, and should not be used as a precedent for future fee regulation. The writ petitions will remain pending to monitor the implementation of these directions.

Conclusion:
The judgment balances the financial constraints of parents due to the pandemic with the operational needs of schools. It provides a structured mechanism for fee concessions while ensuring transparency and fairness. The court's approach underscores the importance of judicial intervention in extraordinary circumstances to uphold constitutional values and protect public interest.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates