Autonomy of unaided schools in fee fixation survives statutory regulation, with controls limited to preventing profiteering and capitation fee.

Unaided private schools in Delhi retain constitutional autonomy over administration and a reasonable fee structure, even within a regulated education regime. The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules permit regulation to prevent maladministration, profiteering and capitation fee, but they do not authorise a rigid fee-fixing scheme or executive controls beyond the statutory text. Directions based only on committee recommendations cannot acquire legal force unless supported by the Act or Rules. Where the framework allows a reasonable surplus for educational purposes, additional restrictions that undermine essential administrative autonomy are impermissible. The fee-related and ancillary directions discussed were therefore outside the statutory framework and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether unaided private educational institutions can be subjected to fee-fixing and other regulatory directions beyond the scheme of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, and whether the surplus generated by such institutions may be regulated only within the limits permitted by the statutory framework and constitutional guarantees.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats school education in Delhi as a regulated field, but the Act and the Rules also preserve significant autonomy for recognised unaided private schools. The provisions dealing with recognition, management, service conditions, school funds, inspection, and utilisation of fees do not authorise a rigid fee structure or executive control outside the statute. The constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions, as recognised in the larger-bench decisions on educational autonomy, permits regulation to prevent maladministration, profiteering, and capitation fee, but not measures that destroy the essential incidents of administration. Directions issued merely on the basis of committee recommendations, without support in the Act or Rules, cannot acquire the force of law. Where the statute permits a reasonable surplus and permits its utilisation for educational purposes, the court cannot substitute a different regulatory scheme or enlarge the control beyond the legislative text.

Conclusion: The fee-related and ancillary directions impugned before the Court were beyond the statutory framework and could not be sustained against unaided private schools.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms substantial autonomy of unaided private schools in fixing fees and managing their affairs, subject only to statutory regulation against profiteering and capitation fee, and rejects judicially created restrictions not grounded in the governing enactment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid regulatory statute governs education, unaided private institutions retain constitutional autonomy over administration and a reasonable fee structure, and courts cannot impose additional controls that are not authorised by the statute or that undermine that autonomy.

---