Mandatory timelines for school fee regulation committees stayed due to operational unworkability and statutory inconsistency.

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

On 01.02.2026, the Respondents issued a "Removal of Difficulties" Notification ("Notification") under Section 21 of the Act.

This Notification accelerated the statutory timelines, requiring schools to constitute School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) by 10.02.2026 and submit fee proposals for the 2026-27 block by 24.02.2026

Petitioners challenged the Notification as ultra vires the Act, arguing that Section 4(1)(b) and 5(2) of the Act originally prescribed much later deadlines (July)

The Petitioners sought an interim stay on the Notification pending final adjudication of the vires of the Act and Rules

Whether the "Removal of Difficulties" Notification is inconsistent with the parent Act by overriding mandatory statutory timelines through a non-obstante clause

Whether the interim operation of the Notification should be stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions

The Court relied on the "Henry VIII Clause" principle established in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, which restricts the executive to making only minor adaptations or peripheral adjustments to a statute without touching its substance

It further applied Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, holding that a delegate cannot change essential legislative policy

State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, which prohibits using such clauses to sidestep statutory restrictions

Procedurally, the court looked at Section 3 (prohibition of excess fee), Section 5(7) (permitting collection of previous year's fee during disputes), and Section 21 (power to remove difficulties) of the Act

The Court found the Notification’s timelines prima facie unworkable and inconsistent with the Act's scheme.

It noted that the Notification lacks a revised timeline for the District Fee Appellate Committee process, which is critical if the SLFRC fails to reach a unanimous decision

Furthermore, the Court observed that Section 3 of the Act does not impose a blanket ban on fee collection; Section 5(7) explicitly allows schools to collect the previous year's fee during a pending reference

The Court reasoned that since the Act protects students from "excess" fees rather than "any" fees, and allows for adjustments later, no irreparable loss would be caused to students by a stay

Conversely, forcing schools to constitute committees during board exams without audited financial statements for FY 2025-26 (required by Rule 9) would cause administrative paralysis

The Court held that schools are entitled to collect the same fees for Academic Year 2026-27 as collected in the previous year, subject to the final outcome of the petitions

Any fees collected will be subject to refund or adjustment if they are later found to be in excess of the fees fixed under the Act

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