Did Delhi BJP Celebrate the SC's Ruling on Rekha Gupta's Anti-Fee Hike Law?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
New Delhi, Feb 3 (NationPress) The President of Delhi BJP, Virendra Sachdeva, expressed his approval of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Delhi School Education Act 2025, deeming it a significant victory for parents against excessive fee increases imposed by schools.
During a recent court session, Sachdeva noted that the court dismissed claims made by private school representatives after reviewing the Delhi government's affidavit. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025 will take effect from the academic year 2026–27, ensuring the protection of parental interests without the need for additional hearings on petitions from private institutions.
The new legislation prohibits the 1,700 private schools in the city from raising fees without obtaining government consent.
Sachdeva criticized both the Congress and Kejriwal’s administration for colluding with private schools, allowing them to exploit parents through annual fee hikes and other charges.
Upon the establishment of the BJP-led Rekha Gupta government in Delhi in 2025, and following attempts by schools to increase fees, Education Minister Ashish Sood introduced this crucial Act.
He challenged the Aam Aadmi Party, questioning their commitment to educational reform as they permitted constant fee increases. He asked why they never enacted a law similar to the Delhi Education Act 2025 if they were genuinely concerned.
The Delhi School Education Act 2025 not only grants parents a role in determining school fees but also ensures that fee adjustments for upcoming academic sessions can only occur with the consent of the parents’ committee.
Sachdeva posed two critical questions to Saurabh Bharadwaj, the AAP convener: Is it accurate that Khagesh Jha, who has challenged the Act, frequently collaborates with Bharadwaj on podcasts? Furthermore, Bharadwaj must clarify why private school owners, if benefiting from this Act, would challenge it in court.