Uttarakhand High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Residential Schools To Only Charge Tuition Fees During COVID-19 Lockdown

Reiterating that commercialization and profiteering in education are impermissible, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the State Government's 2021 orders regulating fees of private unaided residential schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, directing the institutions to charge only tuition fees. 

“In view of the emergent situation, which had arisen due to Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown-imposed consequent thereto, State Government was justified in issuing necessary directions to the private unaided residential schools not to charge fee for services, which were not availed of by the students during the period when the school/ hostel were closed and classes were conducted online,”, the division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit said.

In doing so the high court dismissed the writ petition filed by Welham Boys' School Society and others challenging the government's 2021 orders as infringing the private school's autonomy.

The petitioners contended that the state lacked the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of their schools, asserting that the government order, which allowed them to charge only tuition fees during the lockdown when classes were conducted online, exceeded the state's jurisdiction.

The court while rejecting the petitioner's argument, upheld the State's interference. It justified the exercise of executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, which prohibited the appellant private schools from charging fees for services that students did not use during the lockdown when classes were held online.

“During Lockdown, when Schools were completely closed or during the period, when instructions were imparted virtually to students residing at their homes with parents or guardian, as the case may be, and no facility was provided to them by the schools, yet fee was charged from them under various heads, State Government intervened by providing that Schools can demand Tuition Fee and no other Fee from the students. The interference by the State Government cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. Schools can charge Fee/ charges only in lieu of services like Hostel, Catering, Laundry etc. provided to the students. Without providing these services, School Management was not justified in demanding Fee for services, which are provided only when the School runs in physical m ode and students reside in the hostel. The executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution extends to framing policy and issuing directions in public interest. The impugned Government Orders are referable to Article 162 of the Constitution, which is the source of power, therefore, the contention raised that these Government Orders are without any authority of law, cannot be accepted.”, the court observed.

The Court emphasized that private educational institutions must align their operations with the public interest, especially during emergencies. It validates the State's role in regulating fees to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness.

Reference was drawn from the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, to negate the petitioner's argument that the state cannot interfere with the affairs of the college and parents in relation to fee collection which is purely a private affair between the parties.

It noted that the Supreme Court had in Indian Schools, Jodhpur & another Vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2021) after considering the view expressed T.M.A. Pai Foundation had said that "though the fee can be fixed by educational institutions and it may vary from institution to institution, depending upon the quality of education provided, however, commercialisation is not permissible; and in order to ensure that the educational institutions are not indulging in commercialisation and exploitation, the Government is equipped with necessary powers to take regulatory measures and to ensure that the private unaided schools play vital and pivotal role in spreading education and not in making money".

The high court noted that it had been also held that when it comes to the "notice of the Government that the institution was charging fee or other charges which are excessive, it has complete authority coupled with a duty to issue directions to such an institution to reduce the same so as to avoid profiteering and commercialisation".

“State Government was well within its right to issue the orders, in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution. In view of the emergent situation, which had arisen due to Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown imposed consequent thereto, State Government was justified in issuing necessary directions to the private unaided residential schools not to charge fee for services, which were not availed of by the students during the period when the school/ hostel were closed and classes were conducted online,” the court held.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Welham Boys' School Society & others Versus State of Uttarakhand & another

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Mr. Akshay Singh, Ms. Anjali Rana, 

Counsel for State: Additional C.S.C. Mr. P.C. Bisht

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 1

Click here to read/download the order