Individual Hardship No Ground To Challenge Vires: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds State Law Fixing Fee-Structure Of Private Schools

The petitioners Chhattisgarh Private School Management Association and Bilaspur Private School Management Association Society argued that the Act prescribed a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment and nominating students for admissions.

Thus the law placed unreasonable restrictions on the autonomy of private un-aided schools and consequently violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Noting that the petitioners were a “registered society” that fall beyond the protection of Article 19(1)(g), a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held,

“Challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned Act and the Rules is available to “all citizens” and not available to the petitioners, as both the petitioners are society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1971 and do not fall under the definition of 'citizen'. Freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India can only be enforced by a citizen and the petitioners not being citizens cannot challenge validity of provision on the ground of violation of Article 19(1) of the Constitution…”

Rejecting the petitioners argument that determination of school fees by the Act of 2020 would cause serious hardship to the unaided private schools who are not getting any grant-in-aid from the State, the bench said:

"It is appropriate to notice that hardship of an individual, if any, cannot be a ground to challenge the constitutional validity of an Act/Rule.Where the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are for general good, but cause hardship to an individual, the same cannot be a ground for striking down the Rules...In that view of the matter, the Act of 2020 as also the Rules of 2020 are constitutionally valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness.”

The Act defines 'Non-Government School' as a school the fees of which is not fixed by Chattisgarh Government of Central Government or any organization of state government or central government. The Short title states that it is an Act to give legal basis to mutual consultation among school management and guardians in the process of fixation of fees in Non-Government Schools and to provide the procedure for fixation of fees.

Background

The petitioners were non-governmental member schools affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education and were entirely reliant on fees deposited by students' parents to manage salaries of teachers and non-teaching staff and for administrative maintenance.

It was the case of the petitioners that private schools must enjoy maximum autonomy with regard to administration, appointment, disciplinary powers, admission and fees structures, and the impugned Act and 2020 Rules effectively curb this autonomy, thereby, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and the dictum of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka and others (2002). They further argued that running of private unaided institutions is a matter of administration to be taken care of by their respective Managements and the State has no authority to ascertain their fee structure.

On the other hand, Respondent State submitted that the impugned Act is a regulatory act enacted to prescribe the process of fixation of fees in non-governmental schools and that the State Legislature had the requisite competence to do so as 'education' fell within the Concurrent List. It was further argued that the impugned Act and 2020 Rules were challenged in entirety and there were no specific averments regarding violation of fundamental rights.

Findings:

At the outset, the Court observed that “education” fell under Entry 25 of List III in the Seventh Schedule and is therefore part of the Concurrent List, which empowers the State Legislature to legislate on the subject, subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 & 66 of List I and law made by the Parliament in this regard.

On petitioners' contention that the Act violated the dictum of TMA Pai Foundation, the high court said that in TMA Pai the Supreme Court had said while in day-today management of the institution's management must have freedom. However the Supreme Court had said that State or other controlling authorities can prescribe minimum qualifications, salaries, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as teacher of an educational institution.

The apex court had further said that there should be no capitation fee or profiteering by private educational institutions in the guise of autonomy, the high court noted. 

Against this backdrop, the Court held,

“…we are of the considered opinion that the State Government is well within its legislative competence in enacting the Act of 2020 as well as in promulgating the Rules of 2020 providing regulatory mechanism for determination of school fees in order to have just and reasonable and permissible school fee and the Act of 2005 is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Dismissing the petitions, the Court said:

“…we do not find any merit in the challenge to the Act of 2020 as also the Rules of 2020, as the same are neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions fail…”

Case Title: Chhattisgarh Private School Management Association v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order