-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Can a flexible, multi-tier oversight system work better than a top-down, court-led authority in protecting parents from arbitrary fee hikes while keeping schools financially healthy?
To regulate arbitrary fee hikes and student harassment, the Delhi government recently introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025. Until now, the issue has been addressed through scattered measures such as circulars and judicial orders, with no dedicated legislation offering systematic and comprehensive guidelines. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, has had the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act since 2009 – for 15 long years. However, its implementation and effectiveness have significantly weakened due to strong opposition from private schools and judicial interventions.
Both Delhi and Tamil Nadu represent two markedly different approaches to regulating private school fees in India, reflecting contrasting philosophies on governance and stakeholder involvement.
Both Delhi and Tamil Nadu represent two markedly different approaches to regulating private school fees in India, reflecting contrasting philosophies on governance and stakeholder involvement. Delhi’s Fee Regulation Bill introduces a three-tier, participatory framework that actively incorporates parents, teachers, and government officials across school, district, and state levels to ensure transparent, accountable fee fixation and timely grievance redressal. However, the Bill is new, and its actual implementation will reveal how effectively these provisions work in practice. In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s longstanding 2009 Act centralises authority within a judicial-led Fee Determination Committee vested with civil court powers, focusing on uniform fee ceilings enforceable through legal mechanisms. This article examines the contrast between the two frameworks, analyses their strengths and limitations, and considers how they might learn from each other to better serve the interests of parents, students, and schools.
While the overarching aim of both the legislations is to control arbitrary fee hikes, they differ widely in their approach and mechanisms. The Delhi Bill (2025) applies to all private unaided recognised schools, including minority institutions and those on private or Delhi Development Authority land. The Tamil Nadu Act, 2009, also applies to all private schools in the state, including minority institutions; however, an interim order of the Supreme Court has exempted CBSE and ICSE schools, as they follow central boards and fall outside the purview of state legislation.
For fee determination, Delhi suggests a three-tier oversight system. At level one, a 10-member School-Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC), which includes representatives from the school management (1), teachers (3), parents (5), and a nominee from the Department of Education (1), reviews the proposed fee hike. The second level consists of the District Fee Appellate Committee, followed by the State-Level Revision Committee at the top. In Tamil Nadu, the Fee Determination Committee is headed by a retired High Court Judge with civil court powers who can summon any witness, demand the receipt of evidence, and issue binding fee decisions.
In Delhi, the fee increase is capped at 15 percent, contingent upon committee approval. In Tamil Nadu, the fee is determined based on factors such as school location, infrastructure, administrative costs, and a reasonable surplus for future growth, along with other approved considerations. Both legislations stipulate a review period of once every three years, providing stability for parents. For complaints and appeals, the Tamil Nadu Act does not outline a formal mechanism for a parent group or association to file grievances. Complaints that are brought before the committee have typically involved individual grievances, collective representations, or arise from public interest litigations, media reports, or government references rather than organised parent groups. In contrast, the Delhi model requires that 15 percent of parents act together to file complaints.
For transparency, Delhi schools are required to make prior submission and public declaration of audited financials, both on school noticeboards and their websites. Tamil Nadu’s Act offers transparency via its judicial-led Fee Determination Committee, which mandates all private schools to submit records and obtain fee approval, although disclosure is primarily to the committee. While there is a requirement to display sanctioned fees and records at school premises, online public disclosures and parental participation in transparency are limited.
Delhi provisions for strict penalties of INR1 lakh–INR5 lakh for the first offence; INR2 lakh–INR10 lakh for repeat offences. Refund penalties escalate over time and may include possible de-recognition or administrative takeover. It also prohibits coercive actions against parents and students regarding unpaid fees. In Tamil Nadu, committees can demand and inspect school records and documents using civil court powers and may recommend penalties — such as fines of INR 5,000 (much lower than Delhi’s), refund of excess fees, criminal prosecution for contempt or non-compliance, and even derecognition.
Table 1: Comparative Table on Delhi and Tamil Nadu’s Models
| Feature | Delhi Bill 2025 | Tamil Nadu Act 2009 |
| Applicability | All private unaided schools, including minority institutions and those on DDA land | Applies to all private schools, including state-affirmed jurisdiction, CBSE/ICSE out of scope |
| Fee Review Authority | School, District, State committees with parental inclusion | Central Fee Determination Committee with judicial powers |
| Fee Hike Approval | Based on detailed, itemised costs, including infrastructure, staff salaries, maintenance costs, and any other operational expenses | Schools obtain fee approval based on factors like location, costs, and a reasonable surplus |
| Transparency and Access | Mandates publishing fees online and on school noticeboards | Requires record-keeping and inspection, but no mandatory public posting |
| Parental Role | 5 parent members on the school committee; grievance via a 15 percent parent petition | No parental representation; regulation managed through committee decisions |
| Legal Powers | Administrative authorisation for fee regulation, penalties | Civil court powers (summons, receipt of evidence) for the committee |
| Grievance Threshold | Multilevel appeals, ≥15 percent parent group required to file a complaint | No specified threshold; complaints handled by the district or the fee committee |
| Penalties | Heavy fines, escalating for delays, de-recognition, and asset seizure | Imprisonment (3–7 years), INR 5,000 fine, refund of excess fees |
Source: Author’s own creation
The above comparison highlights how Delhi’s bill emphasises parental inclusion and administrative oversight, featuring broader applicability and stricter penalties, while Tamil Nadu’s model offers deeper legal enforcement with judicial weight, albeit with less parental agency.
While the Tamil Nadu Fee Collection Act, 2009, sets up a strong, centralised fee regulation system through a judicial-led committee vested with civil court powers, it has faced significant hurdles and legal limitations, particularly concerning jurisdiction over CBSE and ICSE schools. Below is an analysis of its main issues, the reasons for the Supreme Court’s interim order limiting its scope, and what Tamil Nadu could learn from Delhi’s emerging model.
Delhi’s bill emphasises parental inclusion and administrative oversight, featuring broader applicability and stricter penalties, while Tamil Nadu’s model offers deeper legal enforcement with judicial weight, albeit with less parental agency.
There are at least five constraints in the Tamil Nadu fee regulation model. First is its inflexibility or one-size-fits-all approach. The State Fee Committee sets binding fee ceilings for all schools in a region, regardless of the institution’s unique positioning, its costs, or facilities, which disproportionately impacts schools with higher input costs. Second is the adversarial regulatory culture envisioned through judicial/civil court-based committees that focus on compliance rather than collaborative decision making or continuous engagement, as seen in more participatory models like Delhi’s.
Third, the Tamil Nadu model, being top-heavy, can result in delays and bureaucratic or judicial bottlenecks, where the process for fee determination and redressal can be slow, with lengthy cycles for reassessment and appeals. This limits responsiveness to inflation or genuine cost increases and alienates schools. Fourth, while the model is strong on legal enforceability, it lacks robust mechanisms for regular parent representation, input, or transparent accountability at the school or district level. Fifth, as a consequence of the above, its uniform imposition on national board schools raises unique regulatory challenges. In 2016, when a group of CBSE and ICSE schools approached the Supreme Court, an interim order curtailed the committee’s power, allowing these schools to operate under separate affiliation norms, cost structures, and accountability mechanisms. The apex court also felt that the imposition of direct fee caps for CBSE/ICSE schools could hinder their ability to maintain national-level parity and unique curriculum requirements. While the judicial committee can still verify whether the fee corresponds to actual facilities provided, the ruling considerably limited its powers to regulate fees for schools affiliated with national boards.
Given these limitations, Tamil Nadu must adopt elements from the Delhi 2025 draft. First is its participatory, multi-tier oversight: committees at school, zonal, and state levels with parental representation and periodic review. Mandatory parent representation and accessible grievance redressal can make the model more participatory and stakeholder-friendly. A three-tier appeal system will also make grievance redressal more collaborative, transparent, and dialogue-driven, with options for mediation, rather than a more court-like adversarial approach. This participatory approach will also help tailor regulations for national-board schools, shifting from imposing uniform caps to having a state committee verify the reasonableness of fees. It should also enhance transparency measures and enforce stricter penalties, in line with Delhi’s model. This would modernise the Tamil Nadu framework, increase its legitimacy, protect quality in diverse educational contexts, and ensure parent empowerment and transparency.
The Tamil Nadu model, being top-heavy, can result in delays and bureaucratic or judicial bottlenecks, where the process for fee determination and redressal can be slow, with lengthy cycles for reassessment and appeals.
Given that the Tamil Nadu model has faced significant problems and legal limitations — especially regarding jurisdiction over CBSE and ICSE schools — Delhi’s emerging model can offer it a blueprint for fee regulation that balances authority with fairness. However, ultimately, the root cause of excessive private school fees lies in the poor quality of public schooling. Systemic improvements in public schooling would exert downward pressure on private school fees, fostering greater accountability.
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
