Calling it a reprehensible act, the Delhi High Court on Thursday expressed its dismay at the conduct of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka engaging bouncers to physically block entry of students over the issue of fee hike.
Noting such a practice had no place in an institution of learning, Justice Sachin Datta said public shaming and intimidation of a student due to financial default did not only constitute mental harassment but also undermined the psychological well being and self-worth of a child. The order came on a plea against the removal of over 30 students by the school over the issue of fee. This was after the HC was informed that pursuant to a coordinate bench’s decision, the school had withdrawn its striking off orders issued to the parents.
In its order, the court said though the school was entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment, it is a place different from a normal commercial establishment and carried fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards students.
“This court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging ‘bouncers’ to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school’s role in the society,” its order read.
At the time of pronouncing the order, the court was informed by the school’s counsel that the order debarring 31 students was withdrawn and were reinstated.The HC said that since the impugned orders whereby the name of 31 children had been struck off the rolls of the school has been withdrawn and the concerned students have been reinstated, the controversy raised in the application had become moot.
“However, it is clarified that if the school seeks to take any action in future by taking recourse to Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, then the school will (i) issue a prior communication specifically putting the concerned students and or their parents, guardians to notice as to the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls; (ii) give a reasonable opportunity to showcause against such action,” it said.
The court said the parents concerned were obliged to adhere to and comply with the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the HC regarding payment of requisite fees to the school.
The May 16 order of the coordinate bench which directed parents to deposit 50 per cent of the hiked fees for academic year 2025-26 following which their wards will be allowed to continue their studies in the classes, gave clear and cogent directions on the amount of the fees payable, it added.
The court had previously clarified that the rebate of 50 per cent was on the hiked component of the fee and the base fee should be paid in full.
Justice Datta on Thursday observed the use of bouncers fostered a “climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion” which was incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school.
The driving force and character of a school, particularly a school such as the petitioner (DPS, Dwarka), run by a pre-eminent society, was rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children, the judge said. The court underlined education and inculcation of values to be a school’s primary objective and not operating as a business enterprise.
The school had previously refuted allegations of profiteering and argued it was running on deficit and due notices were sent to the parents.
The school’s counsel said the school had a deficit of `31 crore accumulated over the last 10 years. The students were expelled on May 9 following which the parents filed an application in a pending petition of the school.
The school moved the high court in July 2024, challenging a July 18, 2024 notice of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, directing the deputy commissioner of police to register an FIR under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the school.