In the case of fee hike in Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Vidhya Mandir, a privately owned School affiliated to CBSE in Ernakulam District of Kerala, few parents protested the fee hike, resorting to strike and “dharna”. The protest assumed rancorous proportions, resulting in expulsion of the children of protesting parents. The school withheld the Certificates and marksheets of such students. The parents of these students approached the Kerala State Commission for Child Rights, which forwarded the matter to the Government for enquiry. The District Collector also intervened in the matter and directed the school authorities to return the certificates withheld. Challenging the actions of Child Rights Commission and District Collector, the school filed two writ petitions. And, parents too approached the Court challenging School’s action against their children.

Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque, who considered the matter, expressed equal disapproval of both the action of the school and the manner of protests adopted by parents. The High Court of Kerala lamented that there was no statutory mechanism in place to address grievances regarding fee hike in private schools but this does not empowers parents to resort to such practices.

Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque said, “A protest or dissent against such a fee hike could have been done in manner without affecting the congenial atmosphere of the school. The parents lost their sense of responsibility and the school authorities responded to the protest in an equally aggressive manner. It seems that the school, which has a duty to impart learning and sense of culture to the students, has lost all sense about their duties. Then it has become a fight between the egos of the parents and school authorities”, expressing his disapproval for the manner of protests adopted by parents and action taken by the school.

The Court further observed that the fight between school management and parents should not result in deprivation of rights of children. Court reminded that if any such issue arises regarding the hike in fees, the remedy of parents is not to resort to “dharna” or creating ruckus nearby or in the school premises. If there is any such action on the part of the parents that has to be responded equally with iron hand and they will have to be booked under the relevant penal provisions. The police can register case and take appropriate action against them. Upon the parents undertaking to remit the fees fixed by the School, the Court directed the school to re-admit the expelled students forthwith.

Justice Mustaque also said “Education is a charitable activity; both the provider and the beneficiary have to see that in such a manner. There cannot be any element of profit except for the further development of the school infrastructure. The State has legislative power under Constitution to make laws in relation to education. Such power includes the power to regulate the fees levied by an educational institution. If any educational institution’s fees is not corresponding to the facilities and infrastructure provided by them, it can be said that it is running for profit. In such an event, the State can interfere”.

Criminal | Civil | Matrimonial | Divorce | Child Custody | Consumer Forum | MACT Claims |