[School Fees amid COVID-19] Supreme Court issues notice in plea challenging Calcutta HC order directing 20% reduction in private school fees

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea filed by an association of 145 schools challenging the Calcutta High Court order directing schools to offer a minimum of 20% reduction in school fees (Association of Schools for ICSE v. Vineet Ruia & Ors)..The High Court had passed an order to this effect on October 13. The following were some of the High Court's directions to private schools in West Bengal:No increase in fees during financial year 2020-21.A minimum of 20% of reduction in fees is to be allowed from April 2020 till the month following the reopening of schools for regular functioning.Non-essential charges for facilities not availed of would not be permissible.Sessions fees are permissible as long subject to the 80% maximum limit.For the financial year 2020-21, a maximum of 5% of the excess of revenue over expenditure would be permissible. In case a school incurred a loss as a result, they can make up for the loss during the financial years 2021-23, if regular functioning resumes by March 31, 2021.There will be no increase in salaries of teachers or of other employees during financial year 2020-21. In the event the school gave effect to a higher pay-scale, amounts outstanding on account of pay revisions to teachers and other employees cannot be recovered from fees during this academic year.Parents whose financial situation did not warrant a reduction in fee have been requested not to avail the reduction.On a case to case basis, schools have been directed to make further reductions or exemptions for parents unable to make payments on time. Whenever any parent applies for such a reduction, they are to support their application with financial statements..[School Fees amid COVID-19] Calcutta HC directs private schools to offer a minimum of 20% discount; sets up committee to resolve grievances.Arguing for the appellant schools before the Supreme Court today, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that High Court had acted as a "super regulatory authority" in this case and had ignored that schools too had to incur expenses during the lockdown. He argued,"Schools are having to face expenses even during lockdown. The order has been made binding even on parties who were not heard. Government has allowed sharing proportionate fees, which has been overridden by the High Court even thought there was no complaint. High Court has transgressed its powers and acts like a super regulatory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing private schools to have a reduction in the fees being charged.".In its order, the High Court had also directed for the formation of a Committee to adjudicate grievances. The Committee comprises Senior Advocate Tilok Bose, the Principal or Headmistress of Heritage School, and Advocate Priyanka Agarwal..Singhvi stated that the High Court direction to form this committee, which will include the advocate for the petitioner, was "not acceptable at all.".The Apex Court ultimately stayed the direction to form the committee..Justice Shah then asked how schools can charge for laboratory or extra curricular activities while they are shut amid the pandemic..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for South Point Education Society, submitted that the High Court could not have passed a general order. He said,"We are dealing with 100s and 1000s of institutions which have no aid. The Court does not have facts before it to pass a general order.".Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta also submitted that a "capricious decision" was taken by the High Court and no basis for the reduction of 20% of fees was elaborated in the order. He submitted,"Court has taken a capricious decision as it had no evidence before it. Supreme Court does not permit any figure in order unless it's justified. How can the reduction of 20% of fees be allowed? I appear for a school that teaches only through craft, but that is non-essential as per the High Court order, and thus fees should not be paid.".Observing that the case will require hearing at length, the Court issued notice. Directions 8 to 16 of the Calcutta High Court has been stayed. .The Bench of Justices Sanjib Banerjee and Moushumi Bhattacharya had made detailed observations on the substantive questions of law involved, including whether the Court could interfere with the fee structure of an institution administered by a religious and linguistic minority..Justice Ray underscored that even minority institutions had to adhere to certain fundamental norms and they could not be run for profit."When it is obvious that the schools have incurred less expenditure over such a prolonged period of time and may continue to do so for some time longer, allowing the schools to charge at the usual rate would be to give a licence to unjust enrichment beyond the judicially demarcated limits," reads the High Court's judgment..On whether the Court's exercise of calling for accounts amounted to a breach of the schools' privacy, the High Court held that the right to privacy was not absolute, and that rights under Articles 19 and 30 could not be used for profiteering.It further emphasized that it could not unduly interfere in the fees charged by such schools unless unimpeachable evidence of profiteering is demonstrated. Even then virtual daylight robbery has to be shown, if there are no other legislative or executive regulations..[Read Supreme Court order]