Delhi’s fee regulation bill will be more robust if it integrates Maharashtra’s parent-majority model, Rajasthan’s quarterly review process, and Punjab’s accessible grievance redressal system
Image Source: Getty Images
India’s education system has witnessed a substantial expansion of private, unaided schools over the past three decades. In just the last decade, from 2013-14 to 2023-24, the proportion of government schools in the country declined by 8 percent, while private schools increased by 14.9 percent. In Delhi, there are a total of about 5,488 recognised schools, of which only 1,240 (22.6 percent) are government or government-aided. The remaining 76.4 percent are private schools, which cater to about 58.4 percent of Delhi’s students.
Although parental preference and perceptions of better-quality drive the growth of private schools, in the absence of strong regulation, they are often subject to steep fee hikes that strain household budgets and threaten equitable access to quality education. The 75th National Sample Survey (NSS) Round, covering the period July 2017 to June 2018, remains the best available household-level data for education-specific spending. The figure below, based on NSS data, shows the difference between average expenditure per student, depending on the type of educational institute.
Source: NSSO, 75th round, 2017-18
In the last few years, there has been growing parental discontent over arbitrary fee hikes, particularly in private schools, along with instances of harassment or expulsion over the non-payment of dues. This has prompted several state governments to step in with regulatory measures.
The first significant attempt to introduce fee regulation was made via the Delhi School (Verification of Accounts and Refund of Excess Fee) Bill, 2015, which proposed mandatory fee audits and refunds of “excess fees”. Though passed by the Delhi Assembly, it was never implemented and remained in legislative limbo.
The period that followed saw weak enforcement of rules requiring schools to obtain prior approval before raising fees. Although the number of fee hike proposals from schools increased, the state government’s rejection of these proposals declined. For example, between 2016 and 2019, rejection rates ranged between 69-75 percent. This rejection percentage dropped from 75.3 percent in the 2018-19 academic session to 59.4 percent in 2019-20, and further to 36.1 percent in 2022-23 and 32.1 percent in 2023-24. Post-pandemic, government oversight further deteriorated, and fee hike proposals were ignored or left undecided, effectively allowing schools to raise fees.
The current Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, addresses an important regulatory gap, seeking to institutionalise fee oversight with statutory authority, transparency norms, grievance redressal mechanisms, and enforceable penalties.
Therefore, in Delhi, due to the absence of any formal fee regulation law or governing body, the issue was addressed through ad hoc court interventions, emergency circulars, and occasional denial of hike proposals, which offered only partial relief. In this context, the current Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, addresses an important regulatory gap, seeking to institutionalise fee oversight with statutory authority, transparency norms, grievance redressal mechanisms, and enforceable penalties.
The National Education Policy 2020 viewed education as a public good and called for transparent and accountable school governance. While it offered no specific mechanism for fee control, it addressed the need to check inequities and further social trust in both private education providers and government oversight agencies. Prepared in the spirit of the NEP to end the “exploitation, pressure, and mental harassment faced by parents over school fees,” the key provisions of the 2025 bill are:
These provisions seek to balance fee regulation transparency, parental involvement, and school accountability while addressing concerns over profiteering in private education in Delhi.
While Delhi can address ongoing protests regarding the bill by enhancing parent representation in the SLFRC, Maharashtra must lower the mandatory requirement for the aggrieved parents’ group to a more reasonable percentage.
Acts regulating private school fees exist in some other states, such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Punjab. All of these require prior fee hike proposals, mandate parental involvement, establish committees for grievance redressal, and prescribe penalties for non-compliance. However, there are several key provisions where cross learning is possible. A brief comparison of Delhi’s fee regulation act with those of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Punjab follows.
Delhi’s bill includes a provision for 10 members in the school-level fee regulation committees (SLFRC), of which five are randomly selected parents from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). Compared to this, Maharashtra's Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011, provides for a majority parent representation (13-14 members out of 25) in the executive committee, allowing them a decisive voice to block or modify proposed increases. It also requires an explicit supermajority consent of 76 percent of parents if the fee hike exceeds 15 percent. However, the requirement for an ‘aggrieved parents’ group,’ i.e., the group of parents required to undertake joint action, is 15 percent in Delhi, compared to a higher 25 percent in Maharashtra. While Delhi can address ongoing protests regarding the bill by enhancing parent representation in the SLFRC, Maharashtra must lower the mandatory requirement for the aggrieved parents’ group to a more reasonable percentage.
Rajasthan’s Schools (Regulation Of Fee) Act, 2016, mandates that schools submit fee hike proposals six months in advance and caps increases at 10 percent per annum. Crucially, Rajasthan mandates the SLFRC to convene at least once every three months, enhancing ongoing oversight rather than relying on a one-off fee decision. Delhi can similarly adopt a provision to convene fee committees quarterly, fostering continuous accountability.
Punjab’s Unaided Institutions Act, 2016, has two provisions, the inclusion of which can benefit Delhi’s bill. First, it mandates the public posting of audited accounts via website or notice boards and features a more accessible complaints mechanism, allowing any parent or student to directly file a complaint with a Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee (DFRC), without needing a group of 15 percent of parents, as is the case in Delhi. Complaints require only a self-attested affidavit, must be scrutinised within 15 days, and resolved within 60 days, ensuring timely redressal.
While Delhi’s Fee Regulation Bill, 2025, marks a crucial step toward reasserting education as a public good, learning from established state models—each with its own strengths and pitfalls—can help craft a law that integrates parental empowerment, transparent governance, and efficient grievance redressal.
On the other hand, both Rajasthan and Punjab will greatly benefit from comprehensive and deterrent-oriented measures that combine financial, administrative, and child-protection aspects of Delhi’s bill. Delhi’s model provides for stronger and clearer penalties with higher fine ceilings, explicit penalties for harassment of parents and students, and administrative powers to cancel recognition or take over school management in severe cases.
While Delhi’s Fee Regulation Bill, 2025, marks a crucial step toward reasserting education as a public good, learning from established state models—each with its own strengths and pitfalls—can help craft a law that integrates parental empowerment, transparent governance, and efficient grievance redressal. Additionally, it is essential that states sponsor capacity building for parent representatives and teachers on financial literacy and regulatory processes, ensuring informed participation and reducing reliance on school management. Only then can every child’s right to quality education be protected against unaffordable fee burdens, thereby preserving social equity and fulfilling the ambitious promise of NEP 2020.
Arpan Tulsyan is a Senior Fellow with the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Arpan Tulsyan is a Senior Fellow at ORF’s Centre for New Economic Diplomacy (CNED). With 16 years of experience in development research and policy advocacy, Arpan ...
Read More +
PREV
