DATE OF JUDGMENT:
3rd May 2021
JUDGES:
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
PARTIES:
Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr (Petitioner)
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Respondent)
SUMMARY
As the second wave of Covid-19 began, schools were forced to pack up again and the classes were moved online. The Supreme Court added that, “overheads and operational costs so saved would be nothing, but an amount undeservedly earned by the varsity without offering such facilities to the students."
AN OVERVIEW
1. Supreme Court while hearing a batch of applications within the case Indian School, Jodhpur Vs. The state of Rajasthan, which challenged an order of the Rajasthan Government which had permitted CBSE schools and State Board schools to gather 70% and 60% of the annual school fee respectively had held that the faculties can collect annual tuition fee after giving a deduction of 15% towards the savings made through overheads and operational costs.
2. The Supreme Court was of the view that, the private schools demanding fees from the students for the services which aren't availed by the students, amounts to profiteering and commercialization.
3. The judgment concerns around 36000 private unaided schools, which includes 220 minority private unaided schools, in Rajasthan.
ISSUES
The issue analyzed by the court –Whether schools can charge the students for the unused facilities?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution: states to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
2. Section 13 of the RTE Act: states no captivation fee and screening procedure for the admission.
3. Section 16 of the RTE Act: states the prohibition of holding back and the expulsion.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari were hearing the appeal and according to the Court as the classes were held online hence, schools must have saved a particular amount on overheads and the operational costs.
2. The Court had calculated that approximately schools have saved 15% on overheads and operational costs and thus they need to offer a deduction in annual school fees.
3. The Court had mentioned the precedents which were led down in various cases like TMA Pai, PA Inamdar,etc during which it had been held that the fees charged by educational institutions must be proportionate to their services only.
4. The Court had stated that a non-public institution has the liberty to set its fees as long because it doesn't end in 'profiteering' and 'commercialization,' which the State has the authority to enforce regulations to its extent.
5. The Court had also held that the school administration, which is ostensibly engaged within the charitable task of imparting education, is required to be attentive and conscious of things and to require the required corrective steps to alleviate the problem experienced by the scholars and their parents.
6. It is the responsibility of the varsity administration to reschedule school fee payments in such how that no student is overlooked or refused the chance to pursue his or her education.
7. The Court had held that each one of the private schools must charge 85% of annual fees.
8. The Court had also ordered that no student should be debarred from attending either online or physical classes thanks to non-payment of fees, arrears/outstanding fees, or installments, which no student's exam results be withheld thereon basis.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court held that the non-public schools demanding fees from the students for the activities and facilities are not availed by them because of the lockdown and it amounts to 'profiteering' and 'commercialization'. Taking judicial notice of the very fact that classes are held online during the last school year, the Supreme Court observed that schools must have saved on overheads and operational costs. The Court reckoned that schools must have saved a minimum of 15% therein way, and hence, they need to offer a deduction in annual school fees thereto extent. The Court said that the faculties "must willingly and proactively" reduce fees thereto extent.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
