The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) on a batch of petitions filed by minority schools challenging the constitutional validity of a new state law mandating government approval for fee hikes in private schools.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the order, adding that the case will be heard next in March 2026. 

“We permit the respondents to file a master counter affidavit in all these matters after serving it to the petitioners. Please file in six weeks,” the Court orders. 

The Court said that the schools can constitute school-level committees to regulate the fees charged by them by January 20 instead of the earlier mandate of January 10. 

Further, the Bench said that the last date for submission of the fee proposed by the school management to the committee shall be extended to February 5. Earlier, it had to be done by January 25.

The petitions filed by various minority schools of the national capital have challenged the constitutional validity of the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025. 

The new law mandates that all fee hikes in private schools must be approved through a transparent, three-tier committee system involving parents, school management and government representatives. 

A notification issued on December 24, 2025, by Delhi's Directorate of Education (DoE) was also challenged before the Court. 

The notification directed private unaided schools to form a School Level Fee Regulation Committee (SLFRC) by January 10, 2026. The committee was directed to comprise a chairperson, principal, five parents, three teachers and one representative from the DoE.

Notably, on January 8, several private schools challenged the new act and the notification. The Court had issued notices in those matters too.

The counsel appearing for the minority schools today argued that the law violates Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants all minorities, whether religious or linguistic, the fundamental right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. 

He contended that the minority schools have the right to fix their own fee and the government can only check that the fee charged does not amount to profiteering.  

“My submission is that prior approval [by government] is wrong… I am saying that this prior approval clause is in clear violation of article 30,” the counsel said. 

Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for the government and defended the law, stating that the Supreme Court judgments interpreting Article 30 permit regulatory measures by the government.