Unschooling Injustice: The Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in School Fee Disputes.


05 August 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In Apeejay School v/s Dhriti Duggal & Another, the Supreme Court addressed a legal dispute between a private unaided school and the parents of its students, clarifying the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of school fee recovery. The case, which began in a trial court and traveled up to the apex court, centered on a school's attempt to recover a fee hike that the parents had refused to pay. The central question was whether the existence of an alternative remedy under the Haryana School Education Act, 1995, and its rules, ousted the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

The school had filed suits for the recovery of money against students and their parents who had failed to pay the increased fees. The trial court and the appellate court initially ruled in favor of the school, but with a crucial condition: the recovery was subject to the decision of the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC). The FFRC was established to evaluate the reasonableness of fee hikes.

 
 

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, however, overturned these lower court decisions, arguing that the existence of the FFRC constituted an alternative remedy that stripped the civil courts of their authority to hear such matters. The school then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, reversed the High Court's ruling. It held that there was no express or implied ouster of civil court jurisdiction. The court's reasoning was two-fold:

Scope of FFRC's Authority: The FFRC's power is limited to hearing complaints from parents or students regarding excessive or unjustified fees. There is no provision in the Act or rules that allows a school to approach the FFRC to enforce the payment of fees. Therefore, a school's only avenue for recovering dues is through the civil courts.
Section 22 of the Act: The court analyzed Section 22 of the Act, which states that civil courts are barred from adjudicating matters where the government or its officers are empowered to do so. Since the government or its authorities are not granted the power to help a school recover fees, Section 22 does not apply in this context.

The court also dismissed the parents' argument that the suits were time-barred. It noted that the cause of action for the suits arose only after a writ petition challenging the government's fee-hike cap was resolved and the state's subsequent appeal was withdrawn.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, allowing the school to recover the fees. It also modified the interest rate on the outstanding amount from 12% to 6%, as directed by the appellate court. The judgment clarifies that while parents have the right to challenge unreasonable fee hikes through the FFRC, schools retain the right to approach civil courts to enforce the payment of fees they deem justified.


Haryana School Education Act, 1995