INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 14 S.C.R. 1
1
INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR & ANR.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1724 of 2021)
MAY 03, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 – ss. 3, 4,
6-11, 15 and 16 – Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rules,
2017 – rr. 3, 4, 6-8 and 11 –Validity of – Challenge to, by the
Management of the private unaided schools in the State of Rajasthan,
on the ground of being ultra vires the Constitution; and violative of
Art. 19(1)(g) since it takes away autonomy to determine the School
fees – High Court rejected the challenge to the validity of the Act of
2016 and Rules framed thereunder – Justification of –Held: Justified
– High Court rightly concluded that the provisions of the Act of
2016 as well as the Rules of 2017 are intra vires the Constitution of
India and not violative of Arts. 13(2) and 19(1)(g) – However, it is
done so by reading down ss. 4, 7 and 10 –Act of 2016 provides for
the regulatory mechanism – Autonomy of the school Management
to determine the fee structure is untrammelled and not undermined
– Institution is entitled to fix its own fee structure, as long as it does
not entail in profiteering and commercialization – Thus, the order
passed by the High Court upheld – Constitutionof India – Arts 13(2)
and 19(1)(g).
Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 – s. 18 –
Power to issue directions – On facts, order by the State Authorities-
Director, Secondary Education regarding deferment of collection
of school fees, including reduction of 70% of tuition fees of CBSE
affiliated schools and 60% of Rajasthan State Board affiliated
schools due to pandemic – Challenge to, by the Management of the
private unaided schools in the State of Rajasthan – High Court
held that the State Government was competent and had jurisdiction
to issue directions – On appeal, held: Director, Secondary Education
had no authority whatsoever to issue direction in respect of fee
structure determined under the Act of 2016 including to reduce the
same for the academic year 2020-21 in respect of private unaided
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
schools – Also order could not be sustained even in reference to
executive power u/Art. 162 – Furthermore, it was not open to the
State Government to issue directions in respect of commercial or
economic aspects of legitimate subsisting contracts/transactions
between two private parties with which the State has no direct causal
connection,in the guise of management of pandemic situation– Also,
no provision in the Act of 2005 which governs the subject of
interdicting the school fee structure fixed under the 2016 Act –
During the lockdown the School Management must have saved
overhead and operational costs on various heads, as such issuance
of direction of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees in
lieu of unutilised facilities/activities–DisasterManagement Act,
2005–Rajasthan Epidemic Relief Act, 2020 – Judicial notice.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The conclusion of the High Court in rejecting
the challenge to the validity of the impugned Act of 2016-
Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 and Rules-
Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rules, 2017 framed
thereunder is upheld.However, it is done so by reading down
Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act in the manner indicated. These
provisions as interpreted be given effect to, henceforth, in
conformity with the law declared in this judgment. The High Court
rightly concluded that the provisions of the Act of 2016 as well as
the Rules of 2017 are intra vires the Constitution of India and
not violative of Articles 13(2) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
[Para 52][58-D-F]
1.2 The appellants are justified in assailing the order dated
28.10.2020 issued by the Director, Secondary Education regarding
deferment of collection of school fees and must succeed. However,
that does not give licence to the appellants to be rigid and not be
sensitive about aftermath of pandemic. The general uniform
direction of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees in
lieu of unutilised facilities/activities and not on the basis of actual
data school-wise are issued. This is with a view to obviate avoidable
litigation and to give finality to the issue of determination and
collection of school fees for the academic year 2020-21, as a one-
time measure. [Paras 114, 118][99-F-G; 102-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.