Jabalpur: In a major relief to private and minority-run educational institutions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has annulled a series of orders issued by the District Fee Regulation Committee (DFRC) in Jabalpur, ruling that the panel had acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority under the Madhya Pradesh Private Schools Fee Regulation Act, 2017.
In its detailed judgment, the High Court strongly criticised the DFRC for overstepping its legal mandate. The bench observed that the Committee had issued directions on matters such as school uniforms, textbooks, the weight of school bags and even academic content areas that do not fall within its jurisdiction under the Act. The Court held that such interventions amounted to administrative overreach and could not be sustained in law.
The Court also took serious objection to the manner in which the DFRC conducted its proceedings. It noted that the Committee had organized public hearings where parents, teachers and school management representatives were all summoned together. The judges pointed out that such collective hearings were not contemplated under the legislation and risked creating unnecessary pressure and confusion. The Court further clarified that earlier dismissals of petitions on the grounds that schools had alternative remedies were legally flawed, and restored the right of institutions to seek direct judicial intervention.
Commenting on the background of the case, Fr. Thankacchan Jose, former President (2016–2020) of the All India Association of Catholic Schools (ANIAC), said the controversy stemmed from actions initiated by the then District Officer, who has since been transferred to Bhopal. He maintained that none of the schools had breached the legally permitted 10 per cent cap on annual fee hikes prescribed by the 2017 Act.
Fr. Jose alleged that schools were subjected to undue pressure to resolve the issue outside the legal framework. He said there were suggestions that the matter could be “settled” through monetary means, an approach that school authorities firmly rejected. “We made it clear that we would stand by the law and abide by the judiciary’s decisions,” he said.
He further explained that officials appeared to believe schools were deriving financial gains through private textbook publishers. This led to the administration organizing a so-called “private publishers’ mela” and instructing schools to submit booklists and source materials exclusively from the event. In response, Catholic schools collectively decided to discontinue private publishers, opting instead for NCERT textbooks for Classes 6 to 12, while teachers developed digital learning materials for KG to Class 5.
According to Fr. Jose, despite the content being provided only in digital form, the District Officer later issued a notice claiming that the material was excessively lengthy. He said authorities objected to schools using their own academic content and insisted on linking curriculum materials to the mela. “There was resistance to us recommending the e-content we had independently developed,” he added.
During the High Court proceedings, a group identifying itself as a parents’ association sought to intervene in the case. However, when the bench questioned its legal standing and learned that the group was not a registered body, the Court declined to allow its participation.
Addressing concerns about the possibility of similar disputes in the future, Fr. Jose expressed confidence that such a situation was unlikely to recur. He noted that several individuals allegedly unconnected to the issue had been arrested earlier, and that political pressure had complicated bail proceedings, eventually leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. He also alleged that FIRs were filed without a proper examination of schools’ audited financial records.
He added that confusion among parents had initially fueled tensions, as many believed they would receive refunds following the DFRC’s orders. However, once the High Court directed that all pending fees must be cleared, parents complied, restoring normalcy on school campuses.
The judgment is being seen as a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional protections available to minority and private educational institutions, reinforcing limits on administrative interference while underscoring the primacy of due process and judicial oversight.