The judgment serves as a model of balanced legal reasoning, striking a fair balance between the legitimate financial interests of schools and the need to protect parents from excessive charges.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, Justice J.N.V. Anjaria, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered a significant ruling in the Apeejay School v. Dhriti Duggal & Anr. under its civil appellate jurisdiction on August 5, 2025. The judgment settles a long-standing debate on whether civil courts can entertain fee recovery suits filed by private schools.
The dispute dates back to the 2009-10 academic session, when Apeejay School, an unaided private school, announced a fee hike. In response, several parents opposed the increase and continued paying the old, lower fee amount. Despite the shortfall in payments, the school permitted their children to continue attending classes.
However, in 2014, when the school obtained official approval to levy a fee increase exceeding the earlier government-imposed 20% cap, it sued parents to recover the unpaid difference between the fees they had charged and the lower amount the parents had been paying for those years.
Also Read: Government Schools in Crisis: Why India’s Public Education System Is Collapsing
The trial court ruled in favour of the school, with a condition that the decree is subject to the review of decision of fees hike by the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC), a committee established under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 upheld the trial court’s order but reduced the interest from 12% to 6% and allowed refunds if the FFRC found the hike excessive
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, however, set aside the trial and appellate court orders. The ground stated was that, under Section 22 of the Haryana School Education Act, civil courts cannot hear such cases because the law already provides another way to resolve fee disputes—through the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC) According to the High Court, FFRC was the only forum that could handle these matters related to fees.
The Supreme Court, hearing the school’s appeal, took a different view. In the final judgement, the court observed that although Rules 158 A and 158 B empower FFRC (Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee) to handle complaints from parents and students, they do not provide a legal process for schools to recover unpaid fees. The Court stressed that the FFRC is a “complainant-driven” body meant to protect parents, not a forum for schools to enforce their claims.
Also Read: The Erosion of Geographical Literacy among Children in India
Building on this reasoning, the court clarified that Section 22 of the Act excludes the civil court jurisdiction only in matters where the Government or its officers have the power to adjudicate. Since the recovery of money by the school is not a power conferred on the Government or its authorities, Section 22 of the Act should not be interpreted to oust the civil court’ jurisdiction in suits of recovery of fees. Restoring the trial court’s order with 6% interest, the SC emphasised that parents remain protected from excessive levies until FFRC review. It also noted that FFRC’s completed audit found no illegality or unreasonableness in the hike, even though the report was not formally on record.
Also Read: Rethinking Global Education Trends
This case signified the importance of a ‘bi-remedial mechanism’, in which the civil court may adjudicate the suits of money recovery by unaided private schools, and FFRC protects the parents/students from fee hikes. It makes clear that Section 22 cannot be used to stop the parents or students from approaching the courts when the law does not expressly give adjudicatory powers to government authorities. The judgment also serves as a model of balanced legal reasoning: by making the recovery order subject to FFRC review, the Court struck a fair equilibrium between the legitimate financial interests of schools and the protection of parents against excessive charges.
(Edited by Sneha Yadav)
(Anshal Telang is an intern with TheRise.co.in)
Reference
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/13386/13386_2022_1_1501_63013_Judgement_05- Aug-2025.pdf