The Supreme Court on Monday raised concerns over the manner in which the Delhi government is seeking to operationalise the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, particularly its application to the ongoing academic year.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe noted that while the legislation was enacted for a legitimate regulatory purpose, the timeline being adopted for its implementation appeared confused and potentially unworkable.

The Court observed that the academic year had already commenced and questioned the justification for pushing through fee-related approvals at this stage.

The observation was made by the Court while hearing petitions filed by associations of private unaided schools challenging the implementation of the Act and a subsequent circular, which requires the constitution of school-level committees and approval of proposed fees.

Among other things, the Act prohibits arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in the capital, places fee caps and ensures transparency in the way fees are charged by schools. The law also prescribes a ₹50,000 fine for schools that harass students over payment of fees. In case schools repeatedly commit violations and fail to pay fines, the government is empowered to seal and sell school property.

The schools have contended that the statutory framework contemplates prospective regulation and not post-facto approval for an academic year already in progress.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi government's Directorate of Education, submitted that the present exercise was intended only for the 2025–26 academic year. However, the Bench expressed concern that advancing processes meant to be undertaken later in the year could have retrospective consequences, including recovery of fees already charged.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the schools, argued that even assuming the validity of the legislation, the manner in which it was being enforced was contrary to the scheme of the Act. He submitted that school managements are required only to propose fees, with approval mechanisms kicking in thereafter and not after the academic cycle has substantially advanced.

The Court clarified that it was not inclined to interfere with the legislation at this stage, but emphasised that its implementation must be consistent with the statutory timelines and practically workable. It cautioned that hurried enforcement could adversely impact institutional viability and defeat the object of the law.

The matter has been listed for further hearing, with the Bench asking the government to reflect on whether the fee regulation exercise is confined strictly to the 2025–26 academic year.