Mandatory school fee committee constitution stayed due to unworkable timelines and pending constitutional challenge to the Act.

The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 (“the Act”) and its corresponding Rules came into force on 10.12.2025 to regulate school fees in Delhi.

Following a challenge to the Act's implementation for the 2025-26 session, the Supreme Court clarified that the Act would not apply to that academic year.

Subsequently, the Respondents issued a "Removal of Difficulties" Notification dated 01.02.2026, which overrode statutory timelines to mandate the constitution of School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) by 10.02.2026 and the submission of fee proposals for the 2026-27 block by 24.02.2026.

The Petitioners sought an interim stay on this Notification, arguing it was ultra vires the Act and practically unworkable.

Whether the Notification dated 01.02.2026, issued under the "removal of difficulties" power (Section 21), is inconsistent with the parent Act by overriding mandatory statutory timelines.

Whether the implementation of the Notification during the pendency of the main challenge to the Act’s constitutionality should be stayed based on the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The court applied Section 21 of the Act, which permits the executive to remove difficulties provided the action is "not inconsistent" with the Act’s provisions.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, which restricts the "Henry VIII Clause" to minor peripheral adjustments that do not touch the substance of the law.

It also relied on State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, which prohibits using such clauses to change the scheme or essential provisions of an Act.

The court also considered Section 3 (prohibition of excess fee) and Section 5(7) (permission to collect previous year's fee during pendency of a reference) of the Act.

The Court observed that the Notification's revised timelines were likely unworkable as the fee approval process—requiring unanimous SLFRC agreement or appellate reference—could not realistically conclude before the 01.04.2026 session start.

The Court noted a significant omission: the Notification failed to provide revised timelines for references to the District Fee Appellate Committee in cases where SLFRC unanimity (required under Section 5(4)) failed.

Crucially, the Court found that Section 3 of the Act does not impose a blanket ban on fee collection; Section 5(7) expressly allows schools to collect the previous year's fee while a fee proposal is pending.

Therefore, the "difficulty" cited by the State to justify the Notification did not exist in a manner that required overriding the Act's primary scheme.

Practical hurdles, such as the unavailability of audited financials for 2025-26 and ongoing Board Examinations, further tilted the balance of convenience toward the Petitioners.

It held that while the substantive challenge to the Act remains pending for final hearing on 12.03.2026, schools are entitled to collect the same fees for the Academic Year 2026-27 as were collected in the previous year.

This collection remains subject to the final outcome of the litigation, and any fees found to be "exorbitant" or in excess of eventually approved rates must be refunded or adjusted, ensuring no irreparable loss to students.