Civil courts retain jurisdiction to recover reasonable school fees; FFRC remedy not an ouster of civil jurisdiction

A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria heard appeals by an unaided private school challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had set aside concurrent trial and appellate findings and held that the School Education Act and Rules provided an alternate forum — the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee (FFRC) — thereby ousting civil court jurisdiction in fee-hike disputes. The appeals arose from a series of suits filed by the school for recovery of increased fees notified for the 2009–10 academic year and subsequent years, which parents paid only after deducting the disputed hike.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the trial court decree for recovery subject to a limited modification of interest, and clarified the scope of statutory remedies under the Act and Rules. The Court held that the FFRC’s statutory role was confined to adjudicating complaints of capitation or “excessive fees” raised by parents or students and did not confer on governmental authorities a power to adjudicate claims for recovery of fees by schools. The Court thus found no express or implied ouster of civil court jurisdiction in fee-recovery matters. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further modified interest to 6% as already determined by the appellate court and directed that the trial court’s decree, which was made subject to any future decision of the FFRC, should stand.

Background The dispute arose when the appellant school increased tuition fees for the 2009–10 academic year. Parents alleged the hike was unreasonable and, following a Government notification that temporarily capped fee increases at 20%, withheld the increased portion while continuing to educate their children. The Government notification was struck down by a Single Judge in 2011, and the State later withdrew its appeal in 2014. After those developments, the school sued parents for recovery of the notified hikes. Trial courts entered decrees in the school’s favour, subject to the outcome of any FFRC decision; the appellate court confirmed the decrees but directed refund if the FFRC later found for the parents to the extent it interfered with the hike. The High Court, however, set aside the concurrent orders on the ground that the statutory scheme (including Rules 158A and 158B introduced in 2014) and Section 22 ousted civil jurisdiction and obliged parents to pursue complaints to the FFRC. The school challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory scheme, the High Court’s earlier decisions that led to constitution of committees to examine fee hikes, and the scope of Rules 158A–158B. The Court noted that the FFRC was empowered to adjudicate complaints of capitation or excessive fees “which can be raised only by a parent or a student” and that no provision empowered the Government or its officers to adjudicate claims for recovery of fees by schools. The Court distinguished the availability of a complaint remedy for parents from any implied removal of civil remedies for recovery. The Court also found that limitation did not bar the suits, as cause of action accrued within limitation after disposal of related appeals. The Court observed that a review petition filed by the school in the appellate court ought to have been allowed because “what was sought to be reviewed was an error apparent on the face of the record.” The Court noted submissions that an FFRC audit found no illegality in the fee hikes for the years in question and emphasised that the trial court’s protective direction — conditioning recovery on any adverse FFRC finding — would adequately guard against any excessive levy.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 925; Civil Appeal No. ( @Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8544 of 2022 ) Case Title: Apeejay School v. Dhriti Duggal & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): H. L. Tiku (Learned Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Santosh Kumar Tripathi (Learned Senior Counsel)