Aatmja Kumari(Intern Journalist): Supreme Court refuses to stay instructions on Calcutta High Court to reduce fees to private schools by at least 20 percent Was directed to reduce by at least 20 percent and not increase the duty in the financial year 2020-21.
The Supreme Court also did not interfere with the High Court’s instructions that schools should not charge for non-essential services (such as labs, crafts, sports facilities, or extracurricular activities) that students are not using. . The High Court had also said that for the current financial year, only a maximum of five percent more revenue on expenditure would be permissible for schools.
The Supreme Court, however, stayed the operation of instructions numbers 8 to 16 given in para 61 of the High Court’s decision on 8 October. According to these instructions, the High Court ordered the formation of a committee to audit the accounts. Based on the audited financial statements, schools were instructed to consider the parents’ application for further reduction or amnesty of fees.
A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy, and MR Shah gave the said verdict on a batch of petitions filed against the directions of the High Court. The bench said that the matter needs to be heard in detail.
The High Court’s decision was given by a division bench of Justices Sanjib Banerjee and Moushumi Bhattacharya, who held that “allowing schools to charge fees at the normal rate would be to license unjust enrichment beyond the prescribed judicial limit.” The High Court further noted that the schools have spent less due to the lockdown. Against the High Court order, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had disregarded the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing private schools to reduce fees. He also termed the High Court’s decision to constitute a committee to audit the accounts of the schools unfairly. Dr. Singhvi stated that the High Court has also included the petitioner’s counsel in the committee.
He also termed the High Court’s decision to constitute a committee to audit the accounts of the schools unfairly. Dr. Singhvi stated that the High Court has also included the petitioner’s counsel in the committee. Singhvi argued that as per the decisions given in TMA Pai, PA Inamdar, and Islamic Education Society cases, courts cannot regulate fees of private educational institutions.
About Post Author
