Pandemic fee regulation for private unaided schools upheld as limited writ scrutiny and temporary relief were permitted.

Private unaided schools, including minority institutions, remained amenable to writ scrutiny under Article 226 because education is a public duty and the complaint concerned fee collection during a pandemic-related breakdown. The Court held that limited judicial review was proper where schools sought fees without corresponding physical facilities and with reduced expenditure. Directions for temporary fee reduction, scrutiny of accounts, and a one-time hardship mechanism did not violate Articles 19(1)(g), 30(1) or privacy rights, since administration rights do not protect profiteering and financial scrutiny was narrowly confined to testing reasonableness. A limited pandemic-specific fee-relief regime was therefore justified, without affecting future autonomy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether private unaided schools, including minority institutions, were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter concerning school fees during the pandemic. (ii) Whether directions reducing fees and requiring disclosure of accounts violated the rights protected by Articles 19(1)(g), 30(1) and the right to privacy. (iii) What interim and substantive fee-relief measures were justified in the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic.

Issue (i): Whether private unaided schools, including minority institutions, were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter concerning school fees during the pandemic.

Analysis: The width of Article 226 is not confined to formal State instrumentalities; it extends to bodies performing a public duty, and education is such a duty. The dispute concerned the manner in which schools discharged that duty during a breakdown-like situation created by the pandemic. The fact that some institutions were minority schools did not place them beyond judicial review where the complaint was that fees were being charged without corresponding physical facilities and with diminished expenditure. The proceedings were therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable against the private unaided schools, including the minority institutions.

Issue (ii): Whether directions reducing fees and requiring disclosure of accounts violated the rights protected by Articles 19(1)(g), 30(1) and the right to privacy.

Analysis: The freedom to administer educational institutions and to carry on an occupation does not permit education to become commerce or justify profiteering. Minority rights under Article 30(1) protect administration, but not profiteering. Likewise, privacy in financial affairs is not absolute where a credible claim of unjust enrichment calls for scrutiny of accounts. In the pandemic setting, a limited and temporary assessment of school finances and fee structure was held permissible to test whether the fees bore a reasonable relation to the facilities actually provided.

Conclusion: The impugned fee-related scrutiny and temporary regulation did not infringe Articles 19(1)(g), 30(1) or the right to privacy.

Issue (iii): What interim and substantive fee-relief measures were justified in the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic.

Analysis: Since physical classes had been suspended for a prolonged period, schools necessarily incurred lower variable costs even if fixed costs remained. A generalised across-the-board solution was therefore warranted to avoid arbitrary outcomes and to prevent coercive collection of full fees while online classes substituted for physical schooling. The Court framed a one-time, pandemic-specific mechanism: no fee increase for the year, a minimum across-the-board reduction, limits on recovery of certain expenses, and a committee-based process for further individual relief on financial hardship. The order was expressly not to operate as a precedent for future fee regulation.

Conclusion: A limited fee-reduction regime and a committee mechanism for individual hardship relief were directed as a one-time measure.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part by securing temporary pandemic-specific fee relief and a structured process for further concessions, while leaving the schools' broader autonomy intact for the future.

Ratio Decidendi: Educational institutions, including unaided minority schools, remain subject to limited writ scrutiny where the grievance concerns public duty and a credible case of profiteering or unreasonable fee collection, and in an extraordinary breakdown scenario the Court may issue narrowly tailored, time-bound directions to prevent unjust enrichment without destroying institutional autonomy.

---