Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt application filed by parents of students against Delhi Public School, Dwarka, noting that the school had reinstated students previously struck off its rolls for non-payment of fees. The Court held that while the reinstatement made the application infructuous, it was compelled to strongly condemn the school’s conduct, especially the use of “bouncers” to block students from entering the premises. The Court directed that any future action under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 must be preceded by a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond. The Court also emphasized that educational institutions must uphold the dignity and mental well-being of children.
Facts
The application was moved by parents alleging violation of an earlier High Court order dated 16.04.2025. The grievance stemmed from an email dated 09.05.2025 issued by the school stating that students had been struck off the rolls due to non-payment of fees under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. Parents contended that this action was unilateral, lacked prior notice, and amounted to mental harassment. Notably, several of the affected students were in class X and had already undergone pre-registration for board examinations. Additionally, the school allegedly deployed “bouncers” to prevent the children from entering the school, making them wait in buses for hours before being sent home. Parents also claimed the school refused to encash cheques and declined to accept partial fee payments.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner school had acted in violation of the High Court’s order dated 16.04.2025.
- Whether the school’s decision to strike off students’ names and prevent their entry without prior notice violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether use of coercive means, such as “bouncers,” constituted mental harassment and abuse of school authority.
- Whether the school and parents were bound by the directions of the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 6500/2025.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The school contended through senior counsel that:
- Fee-related issues were pending before a coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 6500/2025 and should not be re-litigated.
- The school was within its rights under Rule 35 to remove students from rolls for non-payment.
- DPS Society had a long-standing record of providing quality education, and the actions taken were necessary to maintain institutional discipline and financial health.
Respondent’s Arguments
The parents argued that:
- The school acted arbitrarily and without following due process.
- The sudden removal of students, especially board aspirants, had severely impacted their academic and emotional well-being.
- Use of “bouncers” amounted to intimidation and public humiliation.
- The school deliberately avoided accepting partial payments and failed to follow the direction of the Court in accepting 50% of the enhanced fees as per the interim order of 16.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 6500/2025.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which permits removal from rolls for fee default. However, the Court emphasized that such a rule must be read in conformity with the principles of natural justice and constitutional morality, particularly when dealing with minors.
The Court reiterated that actions under Rule 35 must:
- Be preceded by a formal notice.
- Offer the parent or student a chance to explain or comply.
- Not involve any form of coercion or public embarrassment.
Precedent Analysis
The Court heavily relied on the directions issued by a coordinate Bench in Divya Mattey & Ors. v. LG GNCTD & Ors., W.P.(C) 6500/2025. In that case, the Court held:
“Until and unless the DoE reviews the financial statements of the school and… rejects the statement of fee… there is no embargo on enhancement of fee… However, the school is amenable to the petitioners paying 50% of the hiked school fee.”
The Court in that matter had allowed continuation of education upon payment of 50% of the enhanced fees, thereby clarifying the rights of both parents and school until the DoE took a final view.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sachin Datta observed:
“Such a reprehensible practice [of using bouncers] has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school’s role in the society.”
The Court condemned public shaming and physical prevention of students as:
“Mental harassment… which undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child.”
The Court further emphasized the special role schools play:
“A school though charges fees… cannot be equated with a pure commercial establishment… It carries fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students.”
Finally, the Court acknowledged that while parents must comply with fee orders, the school must exhibit sensitivity and refrain from coercive measures.
Conclusion
The application was disposed of as infructuous in light of the school’s decision to reinstate the students. However, the Court issued important directions and observations:
- Future actions under Rule 35 must follow due process with notice and hearing.
- The use of bouncers or similar coercive tactics is unacceptable and must not be repeated.
- Both school and parents must cooperate to safeguard the welfare of students.
Implications
This judgment serves as a significant reiteration of the duty of educational institutions to protect the rights and dignity of students. The Court’s remarks on the distinction between schools and commercial enterprises will have lasting impact in regulating how schools enforce fee-related discipline. Additionally, the case reinforces judicial sensitivity towards child welfare and educational rights amidst financial disputes.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes Convictions in Case and Counter-Case Following Mediation Settlement
