Schools Are Not Businesses, Can’t Harass Students for Fees: Delhi HC

On June 5, 2025, the Delhi High Court made a big decision that strongly criticized Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka.

The court made it clear that colleges are not just businesses and that they cannot use force, including hiring “bouncers,” to terrify students into paying their tuition. Parents filed a petition alleging that the school had acted unfairly toward their kids, such as removing their names from the lists and not letting them on school grounds, which was against a court order from April 16, 2025.

The parents’ petition led to the decision.

Parents of kids who go to DPS Dwarka filed an application saying that the school had not followed the court’s earlier orders. Justice Sachin Datta was in charge of the case, which was brought about by the application. As required by Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the school sent letters to parents on May 9, 2025, telling them that their children’s names had been taken off the rolls right away.

The excuse stated was that the parents had not paid the fees. The email also said that the kids couldn’t get to the school grounds, that their RFID cards had been disabled, and that the parents had to get transfer certificates by May 13, 2025. The parents said that this action was taken without giving them any notice or a good reason, which goes against the principles of natural justice and puts the academic and emotional well-being of the students at risk.

They were especially worried about how this would affect the students in Class X who had already signed up for the upcoming board exams.

For More Updates & Regular notes, Join Our WhatsApp group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

The parents’ lawyer made more concerns, saying that the school had hired “bouncers” to physically keep students from getting into the grounds, making the atmosphere one of fear and embarrassment.

It was also said that some students had to wait two hours on a school bus before they could go home, even though the court’s judgment from April was still in place. The parents also said that the school wouldn’t take payments for the next several months and wouldn’t accept cheques for the tuition that the Directorate of Education (DoE) had already authorized.

They thought that the school had another reason for putting as much pressure on them as possible.
Mr. Pinaki Mishra, the senior counsel for DPS Dwarka, said that the school did the right thing because the issue of price increases was already being looked at in a separate case that was presented before a different bench of the court.

His comment was about the case of Divya Mattey and Others vs. L.G. GNCTD and Others, in which the court talked about the tuition structure for the school year 2024–25. Mishra stressed the Delhi Public School Society’s reputation as a top school and said that the school’s actions were right.
The court didn’t like the school’s actions, though, especially the alleged hiring of bouncers, which it called “reprehensible” and not in line with the ideals that should be preserved by a school. Justice

Datta stressed that, unlike businesses, schools have a moral and legal duty to their students. He stressed that the main purpose of a school is not to make as much money as possible, but to promote learning and teaching values. The court didn’t like what the school did and said that publicly shaming or threatening kids over money issues was mental harassment that hurt the students’ mental health.
On June 4, 2025, the principal of the school filed an affidavit saying that the strike-off orders for 31 students had been lifted and their names had been added back to the list. This was because of an order that was given on May 16, 2025, in the case that was related to the disagreement.

This paper helped to settle the issue to some degree. According to this directive, parents were told to pay half of the extra cost for the 2024–25 school year. The basic fee has to be paid in full while waiting for the Department of Education to make a final decision.

The court made it plain that any future actions taken under Rule 35 must include prior notice and an opportunity for parents to respond in order to make sure that natural justice is followed.
Justice Datta told both the school and the parents to be careful and work together to preserve the kids’ best interests in his judgment. The verdict reminds schools that they should care more about the health and dignity of their students.

This will help them become better places to study and develop a nation, instead of just places that make money. After the application was denied, the court hoped that both parties would work together to prevent similar problems in the future.