Gujarat HC Quashes Govt. Order Restraining Fee Collection By Pvt. Schools Until Reopening [Read Judgment]

The Gujarat High Court has quashed a government order restraining private unaided schools from collecting tuition fees until they reopened, stating that such an injunction will force smaller institutions to shut down.

In the decision on Friday, the court set aside three clauses of a government resolution (GR) issued on July 16: one, that no fees shall be charged by any unaided schools either towards the tuition fees or in relation to any optional activity so long as the schools are being conducted online; two, that the expenditure incurred in the salary of teaching and non teaching staff of the Schools shall be considered while determining the fees for the next year; and three, that the fees, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the fees which would become payable upon the physical opening of the schools.

The Government Resolution impugned, issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, claimed that "Educational institutions are charitable institutions and the main purpose of their establishment is & noble cause of providing education to society without profiteering" and that "These institutions should give maximum support to students/parents especially when they are passing through precarious economic conditions in present circumstances".

Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J. B. Pardiwala observed that the pandemic has brought about not only a massive healthcare crisis but also economic instability, that thousands have lost their jobs and thousands others are working on salary cuts. "We are in a situation where nobody's predicament can be ignored. We understand that schools need a certain amount of money to function and pay their staff salaries but it is also important to remember that not all families are financially stable at the moment", said the bench.

The Court was of the view that a "balance has to be struck" between providing children a reasonable education and the interests of their guardians, on the one hand, and allowing the schools to stay afloat, on the other.

Remarking that "Children are our first priority right now", the division bench cited that a large study from South Korea, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S., found that children aged 10 to 19 spread the virus at the same rate as the adults, nearly 19 per cent of the time. "Trusting science and keeping in the mind the statistics, reopening schools and starting in person classes remains out of question. For the safety and wellbeing of our children, education must continue to be delivered remotely", asserted the bench.

The bench reflected that the country is in uncharted territory currently and that there is no alternate education system in place that can be implemented during a public health crisis. The court acknowledged that the schools and teachers across the country are working very hard to redesign the current system to fit the needs of their students, and that managing the education of students remotely by conducting Online classes is a tedious job. "As individuals, their efforts and hardwork shouldn't be ignored. As professionals, they must be paid for their time and service justly", said the bench, adding that thus, it is acceptable for the schools to charge a reasonable tuition fee to the parents for the online classes they conduct.

Stating that "Researchers and physicians believe that missing school for a long period of time can have significant impacts on the cognitive and social development of the child", the bench urged parents to acknowledge that online education of their child is not a futile effort on the part of the schools and schools need to be paid appropriately for their service.

"Schools on the other hand must be conscious of the economic instability faced by their students' families. Many parents have been laid off from their jobs or are working on severe salary cuts and it would be unfair for them to be paying for suspended school services (like bus, sports, activities, stationary etc)", the bench further commented. The Court encouraged the schools to adopt a non profit outlook for the next few months, allowing fees to be paid on a monthly basis or in installments so less burden is exerted on the parents.

"For the past few months, life has been thrown off track completely. What children need most is a sense of continuity and routine to make them feel like life is back on track. Schools are the best way to provide a child with this sense of normalcy, even if the schooling is online", articulated the bench.

The judgment sums up the points which the State Government as well the federation of the unaided private schools should bear in mind for the purpose of arriving or bringing around an amicable solution are as under:

1. There is a need to balance the interests of all stakeholders, students and / families of the students on one side and the teaching community on the other.
2. The adverse impacts of the situation created by the pandemic need to be shouldered by all stakeholders and the community as a whole, needs to be united in its fight. The impugned resolution and the actions of the state have the effect of dividing sections of the society.
3. Schools should not charge for any fees apart from tuition fees. No fees for extra-curricular activities should be charged.
4. Tuition fees cover salary, establishments and curricular activities, the maintenance expenditure which continues to be incurred by schools, even during the period of lockdown.
5.  Unaided private schools, receive no funds from the government, are entirely dependent on fees, to defray their daily expenses.
6. Expecting smaller institutions to bear their own expenses without receipt of tuition fees will force many institutions to shut down, permanently. If such institutions shut down, the fate of the students studying in such schools will be at stake and the parents of such students will have no option but to enrol them in bigger schools that charge higher amount of fees, when schools are reopened for students.
7. If teaching is a noble and charitable cause as stated in the impugned resolution, why does the State not take steps to waive collection of tuition fees of colleges. Why should the waiver not be for all educational institutions, schools and colleges, both. For instance there are many medical colleges being operated by Societies and trusts established by the State. Why should the State not exempt the fees to such medical colleges and other private medical and engineering colleges ?
8.  Parents need to pay tuition fees to keep institutions running. Arrangements can be worked out for payment of fees in installments or on a monthly basis but complete non-payment of tuition fees will hit the level of education.
9.  What about families where parents of students, themselves belong to the teaching fraternity. The impugned resolution creates uncertainty for all.
10. Presently, the schools have resumed providing of online education but for how long can this be sustained by schools, more particularly the smaller institutions."

The bench requested the State Government to convene a meeting with the office-bearers of the association of unaided private schools and try to arrive at some understanding which is equitable in nature.  

Click here to download the Judgment