Facts: Petitioner No. 1, a 13-year-old student, was promoted to the 7th standard at Father Agnel School (Respondent No. 7). Her father, Petitioner No. 2, had raised grievances against the school regarding arbitrary fee fixing and non-use of NCERT books. On 24.03.2025, the school issued a notice demanding outstanding fees of Rs. 23,900/-, failing which a Transfer Certificate (TC) would be issued. Subsequently, the school issued the TC and expelled the student. The school, an unaided minority institution affiliated with the CBSE, contended that it was not governed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and that the father’s conduct, including alleged threats and complaints, justified the action.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the expulsion and the issuance of the Transfer Certificate.
Issue: Can a student be denied education or expelled from school before the completion of elementary education on the grounds of non-payment of fees, especially in light of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009?
Holding: No. The Court held that the expulsion was illegal and bad in law. It quashed the Transfer Certificate and directed the school to readmit the student, while ordering the petitioners to clear the fee arrears.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that although the school is an unaided minority institution, it had specifically agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the Government of Maharashtra as per its No Objection Certificate and subsequent government approvals. Under Section 16(4) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no child can be expelled until the completion of elementary education. Furthermore, the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011, particularly Section 3A, allows schools to charge late fees or penal interest for non-payment but does not empower them to expel a student. The Court emphasized that education is essential for the blossoming of a child's personality and that statutory protections for children aged 6 to 14 must be strictly upheld regardless of fee disputes between parents and management.