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

The Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025 ("Act") and its Rules were notified in late 2025 to regulate school fees.

On 01.02.2026, the Respondents issued a "Removal of Difficulties" Notification ("Notification") to operationalize the Act for the 2026-27 academic block.

This Notification bypassed the statutory timelines under Section 4 and 5 of the Act—which require committees to be formed by July of the previous year—by mandating the constitution of School Level Fee Regulation Committees (SLFRC) by 10.02.2026 and fee proposals by 24.02.2026.

Petitioners challenged the Notification as ultra vires the Act, arguing that the executive cannot use a "removal of difficulties" clause to override or amend mandatory legislative provisions.

1. Whether the operation and implementation of the Notification dated 01.02.2026 should be stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions challenging its constitutionality.

2. Whether the revised timelines for fee fixation stipulated in the Notification are consistent with the parent Act or constitute an impermissible exercise of executive power.

The Court examined Section 21 of the Act, which permits the removal of difficulties only if the action is "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act".

It relied on the Supreme Court principles in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, which held that the "Henry VIII Clause" allows only minor peripheral adjustments and cannot touch the substance of the statute.

It further considered the "Public Interest" test for injunctions from Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation.

and the prohibition of collection of "excess fee" under Section 3 of the Act.

The Court found the Notification's timelines prima facie "unworkable".

It noted that the Act requires a unanimous decision by the SLFRC, failing which a reference is made to the Appellate Committee; however, the Notification failed to provide a revised timeline for such references, making it impossible to conclude the process before the April 1st session.

The Court observed that Section 3 of the Act does not create a blanket ban on collecting fees, but only "excess" fees; Section 5(7) expressly allows schools to collect the previous year's fee during a pending reference.

Balancing the hardships, the Court noted that schools faced practical hurdles like Ongoing Board Exams and a lack of student caste data required for committee composition.

Conversely, students are protected because any excess fee collected remains subject to the final outcome of the litigation and can be refunded or adjusted later.

It ordered that the operation and implementation of Clause 3(1) and (2) of the Notification (regarding the revised timelines) be kept in abeyance.

The Court directed that schools are entitled to collect the same fees for the Academic Year 2026-27 as collected in the previous year, subject to the final outcome of the petitions and subsequent adjustments or refunds as may be required under Clause 3(6) of the Notification.