Case Laws against Illegal Fee Hike, Child Harassment & Expulsion by the Schools- The organization has decided to publish series of case laws of supreme court as well as high courts which would be helpful to the lawyers as well as common people in the matters where the children have been harassed or even expelled from the school for demand of capitation fees, illegal and excessive fees.
The educational law especially related to the schools is one of the most complicated field of the law, as sometimes many acts and judgments do apply in one school’s matter, e.g. in the state of Maharashtra alone people face complications as more than 5-6 laws apply at the same time for the issues related to illegal fee hike, child harassment & expulsion by the schools.
The parents are the main victim for such complicated laws as they are often misled by the government officers as well as school authorities which ultimately has resulted in huge commercialization of education.
The lawyers further face difficulty as they need to study all the acts & rules and then keep researching important case laws against illegal fee hike, child harassment & expulsion by the schools. which has unfortunately become rampant in our country and most of the private as well as minority institutions have shamelessly left no stones unturned to completely commercialize the education system of India.
Accordingly the organization has decided to launch the legal awareness series especially related to case laws against illegal fee hike, child harassment & expulsion by the schools which has become the most controversial topic in our country now days.
Case Laws against Illegal Fee Hike, Child Harassment & Expulsion by the Schools-The important case laws related to or against the illegal fee hike, child harassment & expulsion by the schools mainly focusing State of Maharashtra are given as follows-
1. Appeal (civil) 5041 of 2005 Petitioner: P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors-
A Constitution Bench of 5 judges sat to interpret the 11-Judge Bench decision
in Pai Foundation. The important paras are as follows-
Rejection of concept of ‘Post Audit’ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India-
(Page No’s 47 & 48 of the judgement)-
”The suggestion made on behalf of minorities and non minorities that the same purpose for which Committees have been set up can be achieved by post-audit or checks after the institutions have adopted their own admission procedure and fee structure, is unacceptable for the reasons shown by experience of the educational authorities of various States. Unless the admission procedure and fixation of fees is regulated and controlled at the initial stage, the evil of unfair practice of granting admission on available seats guided by the paying capacity of the candidates would be impossible to curb.”
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Appeal (civil) 5041 of 2005 Petitioner P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.Pdf
2. Writ Petition No.5378/2013 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court)-
In this judgement, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court not only held against the private minority school that the child should not be victimized for the quarrels between parents & the school management, but also promoted the child directly to the next academic year who was studying at home for more than one year because of the expulsion by the school management.
The school’s expulsion order against minor children was declared illegal & unconstitutional. In the same judgement the Hon’ble Court has upheld that the The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is equally applicable to the minority institute except the provision of 25% admission to the backward class students.
The important paras of the judgement are as follows-
”26.Both the learned counsel were unable to point out any provisions which empowered expressly or impliedly, to expel the students in such fashion. The submission that the Management have a power to admit and/or control the admissions and therefore, they have also power to expel the student, in our view, is unacceptable and specifically, in the present facts and circumstances, as admittedly they have not followed the basic principle of natural justice.”
”28.Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued before taking such drastic action of expulsion. No hearing was given to the Petitioner before passing such order against the children. On the contrary, we have noted that the action was taken because of stated parents’ indecent and illegal behaviour, though the children’s conduct was satisfactory. The correspondence and discussion between the parties, referring to the issue of fees and/or agitation by the Petitioner’s husband father of children, cannot be the ground to hamper the children’s education and/or future career, in the guise of discipline and/or to maintain the peace and harmony. There are various ways and means to tackle the same. The parties could have settled and/or resolved the issue, instead of turning the agitation to such extent of expelling the children from the school.”
The Hon’ble High Court further held that,
”The Petitioner’s son lost one year because of this conflict. The allegations and/or counter allegations, even if any, for want of specific provisions, could not have been used and utilized to expel the child from the school. There is material on record to show that the Respondent Management also expressed that “We have sent the ‘Leaving Certificate’ not on the grounds of non payment of fees, but only as a part of disciplinary action”. Such disciplinary action could not have been initiated against the children, whose conduct was satisfactory. The alleged misconduct of parents, cannot be the reason to punish the children. There is no supportive material placed on record by the School/Management for such action on the basis of declared law. The children cannot be punished for the alleged/stated misbehavior of the parents. It is totally impermissible. The whole action, therefore, so initiated and taken by the School/Management, in our view, is unjust, impermissible, contrary to law, apart from in clear breach of principle of natural justice and therefore void, illegal and impermissible. It is liable to be quashed and set aside. The consequence of such order, in the peculiarity of this case, should be followed by a restoration of the Petitioner’s son’s position to continue further study in the same school. There is no question to hold back the Petitioner’s son in the same class.”
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Writ Petition No. 5378 Of 2013.Pdf
3.Parents Forum For Meaningful Education – Appellant Versus Union Of India – Respondent Civil Writ 196 Of 1998-
The Delhi High court struck down Rule 37 (1) (ii) and (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, holding it violative of Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. The Hon’ble High Court also directed the State “to ensure that children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and they receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear.”
Before striking down the rule, the Hon’ble Court took the high ground, quoting extensively from the Constitution of India, the Universal Human Rights, and the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Stating that “subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education,” the Hon’ble Court called attention to the long-term consequences of the punishment such as disdain and hatred for teachers, development of a fear psychosis, irregular attendance at school, and an increase in the dropout rate.
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Parents Forum For Meaningful Education – Appellant Versus Union Of India – Respondent Civil Writ 196 Of 1998.Pdf
4.Kobad JehangirBharda vs. Farokh Sidhwa and Ors (Appeal No. 1172 of 1989 in Writ Petn. No. 2053 of 1989, D/-7-5-1990) –
This is one of the most important judgement for the students of the secondary schools & especially belonging to the standards for which provisions of ‘Not Holding Back’ of The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 does not apply. In this matter the Hon’ble Bombay High Court set aside the expulsion of the student who was expelled in violation of Rule 56.5 of the Secondary School Code 1979. The Hon’ble High court further upheld that the violating the Rule 56.5 of the Secondary School Code 1979 entails withdrawal of the recognition.
The important paras of the judgement above mentioned are as follows-
18……………..In other words, when the Code recognised the power to expel a pupil, it also limited the exercise of such power to specified circumstances and pointed out the only mode in which the power may be exercised++Then the Code provides for the consequence. If a pupil is expelled without following the prescribed mode, a breach of the Code is committed. This entails withdrawal of recognition of the School. In our opinion, compliance with Rule 56.5 is mandatory. The whole aim and object of the Rule 56.5 will be defeated if the particular mode of expulsion is construed to mean a mere direction.
19. In our opinion, the School has failed to comply with the mandatory directives laid down in Rule 56.5 of the Code. Although the letters written by the School accused the Petitioner of certain acts of misconduct, in the affidavit of Dr. (Mrs) Mowji, the Principal, it is claimed that the School merely issued the School leaving certificate. No misconduct is alleged. We are certain that the Petitioner was expelled for the supposed misconduct set out in the letters written by the School. Since no reasons for the expulsion have been recorded and since the expulsion was not communicated to the Director of Education, the expulsion is contrary to Rule 56.5 of the code. For the same reason, the School has violated the conditions of its recognition by the Government. 20. For all these reasons the Petitioner’s expulsion from the School is illegal.
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Kobad JehangirBharda vs. Farokh Sidhwa and Ors (Appeal No. 1172 of 1989 in Writ Petn. No. 2053 of 1989, D-7-5-1990).Pdf
5.Shikshan Mandal & Ors Petitioners Vs. State Of Maharashtra – Writ Petition No. 6727 Of 2010-
In this matter, the 3 judges bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the Secondary School Code 1979 is applicable to the schools of Maharashtra & it has statutory force.
The important paras of the judgement above mentioned are as follows-
5. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that in view of the provisions in the Regulations framed under the Boards Act, a recognised school is under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code. In so far as the State Government is concerned, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government by Mr.Sumit Mullick, Principal Secretary to Government, School Education and Sports Department, dated 5th
August, 2011. What is stated in paragraph 2 of that affidavit is relevant. It reads as under:
…….6. It is, thus, clear that even according to Government of Maharashtra the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code has statutory status. Question No.(i) referred to us is, thus, accordingly answered.
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Shikshan Mandal & Ors Petitioners Vs. State Of Maharashtra – Writ Petition No. 6727 Of 2010.Pdf
6.Vibgyor High School Vs State Of Maharashtra Writ Petition No.1919 Of 2009-
The most important para of this judgement is as follows-
58. Suffice it to observe that the sum and substance of our decision is that even though the private unaided school has discretion to fix its own fee structure, it is open to the State Government to regulate the same insofar as unusual expenditure within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 4 of the Capitation of Fee Act. As and when the issue of recovery of any unusual expenses such as exorbitant expenditure on buildings rent, is raised either by the parents or it comes to the notice of the State Authorities and in spite of that, the school continues to recover the disputed amount without taking approval of the State Government, the Management of such school would run the risk of legal action provided for in the Capitation Fee Act. When such occasion arises, the Management of the school may have only two options – first is to obtain approval of the State Government at the earliest opportunity for allowing it to recover the disputed amount by way of fees from its students. The second is to continue to recover the disputed amount stipulated by it as fees from its students unabated and in which case the Management of the School may run the risk of facing appropriate legal action under the provisions of the Capitation Fee Act and other enabling enactments.
The judgement above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
Vibgyor High School Vs State Of Maharashtra Writ Petition No.1919 Of 2009
7.St. Xaviers High School Vs The Union Of India And Ors-Writ Petition No.243 Of 2016-
In its order against many reputed schools of the State of Maharashtra Hon’ble Bombay High Court has declared that in the absence of any stay for proceedings the state government can always take action against the schools violating the Maharashtra Educational Institutions Regulation of Fee Act 2011.
The order reads as follows-
”We clarify that since there are no interim orders in any of the Petitions, if the authority of the Education Department find that any of the schools are refusing to implement the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institute (Regulation of Fees) Act, 2011, the pendency of the Petitions would not come in the way of such authority in taking such steps against such schools for not following the provisions of law. Stand over to 20th March 2018.”
The order above mentioned can be viewed & downloaded with following link-
St. Xaviers High School and ors Vs The Union of India and Ors Writ Petition No.243 OF 2016
Check our All the Top Legal Awareness Articles to Fight against Corrupt System in Single Page through Following Link-
https://wp.me/P9WJa1-PL
To get the latest update about articles like above, don’t forget to join our Twitter & Facebook Pages, Links are as below–
https://www.facebook.com/jaihindbks
https://twitter.com/jaihindbks
Please Share this article with Social Media Buttons available at the bottom of the page & also Subscribe Our Website by entering your email address in Subscribe Box below to get the Legal Awareness Articles through email.
-Adv.Siddharthshankar Sharma
Founder President-Bharatiya Krantikari Sangathan
Disclaimer- None of the authors, contributors, administrators, or anyone else connected with this website, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. The visitors are advised to take the opinion of their learned counsels before proceeding & relying upon the information above given before approaching any authority, court or commissions.
