The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that public shaming or intimidation of a student over non-payment of academic fees not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well being and self-worth of a child [Delhi Public School Dwarka vs National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Ors]

Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while expressing dismay over Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka's alleged conduct of engaging “bouncers” to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises.

"Such a reprehensible practice 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. Public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well being and self-worth of a child. The use of “bouncers” fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school," the Court said.

It stressed that the primary objective of a school must not be to operate as a business enterprise.

"A school though charges fees for the services rendered, cannot be equated with a pure commercial establishment. The driving force and character of a school (particularly a school such as the petitioner, which is run by a pre-eminent society) is rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children. The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise," the single-judge said.

The Court was dealing with an application moved by parents of 32 students allegedly expelled by DPS Dwarka over non-payment of fees. The number was later clarified to be 31 students.

They had argued that the decision was contrary to the High Court's earlier order, which protected the interests of the students. The parents stated that bouncers were placed outside the school to stop these students from entering the premises.

They further alleged that despite several reminders, the school deliberately did not encash the cheques submitted to pay the fee approved by the government authorities.

A co-ordinate bench of the High Court on May 16 allowed the students to be reinstated to their classes provided that their parents deposit 50 per cent of the hiked school fee.

After the verdict, DPS released a notification on June 4 withdrawing its order. The school reinstated the students on the condition that they pay the hiked fees as per the court order

Justice Datta was apprised of this development today morning. Consequently, the single-judge disposed of the application saying,

"Since the impugned order/s whereby the name of 31 children had been struck off the rolls of the school, has been withdrawn and the concerned students have been reinstated, the controversy raised in the present application has become moot."

However, the Court, while parting with its decision underscored that a school has fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students.

"The school, no doubt, is entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment. However, the school is different from a normal commercial establishment, inasmuch as it carries with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students," it added.

However, the Court also said that the concerned parents are obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by the High Court on payment of requisite fees to the school.

It also expressed hope that the school as well as the parents "will act with circumspection and cooperate with each other with a view to advance the interest of the concerned students."

The parents had filed the application in a pending plea moved by DPS against the order of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) directing the Delhi Police to register a first information report (FIR) against the school. 

It was alleged that the school had confined students to the library, named them publicly and expelled a few of them for non-payment of fees. In one instance, a girl was denied help during menstruation because her fee was due. 

The order to register the FIR was later stayed by the High Court. 

However, in an order passed on April 16, the High Court had severely criticised the school over its decision to segregate and harass students who did not pay the fee. The school was ordered not to stop any student from attending classes. 

Senior Advocates Pinaki Misra and Puneet Mittal along with Advocates Bhuvan Gugnani, Sakshi Mendiratta and Nupur Mantoo appeared for DPS Dwarka. 

Advocates Manoj K. Sharma, Manish Gupta, Vivek Chandrasekhar, Akanchha Jhunjhunwala, Deepti Verma and Sandeep Gupta appeared for the parents.

Advocates Abhaid Parikh, Rishabh Dubey and Garima Sardana appeared for NCPCR.

Standing Counsel Sameer Vashishtha with advocate Avni Singh appeared for the Department of Education.

Senior Panel Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain and panel counsel Kautilya Birat appeared for Delhi Police.

[Read Order]