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 ("Act") and its corresponding Rules came into force on 10.12.2025

The Act establishes School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) to approve fee structures for three-year blocks.

While the original Act required SLFRCs to be constituted by July 15th of the previous year, the Respondents issued a "Removal of Difficulties" Notification on 01.02.2026

This Notification overrode statutory timelines, mandating the constitution of SLFRCs by 10.02.2026 and fee proposal submissions by 24.02.2026 for the 2026-27 academic session

Petitioners challenged the Notification as ultra vires the Act and the Constitution, seeking an interim stay on its implementation

Whether the "Removal of Difficulties" Notification dated 01.02.2026 is inconsistent with the parent Act and exceeds the executive power granted under Section 21

Whether the revised timelines for the constitution of SLFRCs and fee approval are workable and legally valid for the academic year 2026-27

Whether the implementation of the Notification should be stayed during the pendency of the main writ petitions

The court applied Section 21 of the Act, which permits the removal of difficulties only if the action is "not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act"

It relied on Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, establishing that "Henry VIII clauses" only allow minor peripheral adjustments and cannot touch the substance of the statute

Further, it considered Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, which held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated to the executive

The court also referenced Section 3 (prohibition of excess fee) and Section 5(7) of the Act (permitting collection of previous year's fee during pending references)

The court found that the Notification’s non-obstante clause, which overrides statutory dates (e.g., shifting "July 15th" to "February 10th"), prima facie alters the scheme of the Act rather than merely removing a difficulty

The court noted that the proposed timelines were practically unworkable, as the process for unanimous approval or appellate reference could not realistically be completed before 01.04.2026

Crucially, the court analyzed Section 5(7) of the Act and concluded that Section 3 does not impose a "blanket prohibition" on charging fees; rather, schools are legally entitled to collect the fees of the previous academic year while fixation is in progress

Consequently, the "urgency" claimed by the State to prevent an "anomaly" was found to be legally unfounded

The court also credited the Petitioners' arguments regarding the lack of audited financials for 2025-26 and the difficulty in selecting representatives during board exams

The Court directed that the operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the Notification shall remain in abeyance

Schools are permitted to collect the same fees for the Academic Year 2026-27 as were collected in the previous year, pending the final outcome of the challenge to the Act's vires

The applications were disposed of, and the main petitions were listed for final hearing on 12.03.2026