Delhi High Court: In an application alleging non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 16-4-2025 passed by the Court in the Delhi Public School, Dwarka (DPS Dwarka) controversy, Sachin Datta, J., expressed its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner, i.e., DPS Dwarka in engaging “bouncers” to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises. The Court stated that public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child.
The Court stated that no doubt, the school was entitled to charge appropriate fees, but the school was different from a normal commercial establishment, inasmuch as it carried with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students. The Court further emphasised that the parents concerned were obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court regarding payment of requisite fees to the school.
Background
The grievance caused by the applicants, i.e. parents of students at DPS Dwarka was that in contravention of the said order dated 16-4-2025, the school had taken coercive and arbitrary action against the students in guise of arrears of fees. It was stated that DPS Dwarka vide an e-mail dated 9-5-2025, informed the parents that the names of their children have been removed from its rolls with immediate effect on account of ‘non-payment of school fee under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973’.
The parents submitted that the decision of DPS Dwarka to remove the children from its roll was undertaken without any prior intimation/reasoned order and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the school had resorted to engage “bouncers” to prevent the children from entering the school premises.
Analysis, Law, and Decision on DPS Dwarka Controversy
The Court observed that since the impugned order whereby the name of 31 children was struck off the rolls of DPS Dwarka, was withdrawn and the students concerned were reinstated, the controversy raised in the present application had become moot. However, the Court 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 would (i) issue a prior communication specifically putting the students concerned and/or their parents/guardians to notice as to the date on which the students were proposed to be struck off the rolls; (ii) give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action.
The Court expressed its dismay at the alleged conduct of DPS Dwarka in engaging “bouncers” in school to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises. The Court stated that such a reprehensible practice had no place in an institute of learning. It reflected not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school’s role in the society.
The Court stated that public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child. The use of “bouncers” in school fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that was incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school.
The Court further stated that a school though charges fees for the services rendered, could not be equated with a pure commercial establishment. The driving force and character of a School is rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children. The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise.
The Court stated that no doubt, DPS Dwarka was entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment. However, the School was different from a normal commercial establishment, inasmuch as it carried with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students. The Court further emphasised that the parents concerned were obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court regarding payment of requisite fees to the school.
[Delhi Public School, Dwarka v. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, W.P.(C) 10434 of 2024, decided on 5-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate, Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate, Sakshi Mendiratta, Bhuwan Gugnani and Nupur, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Abhaid Parikh, Rishabh Dubey and Garima Sardana, Advocates, Manoj K. Sharma, Manish Gupta, Vivek Chandrasekhar, Akanchha Jhunjhunwala, Deepti Verma and Sandeep Gupta, Advocates; Sameer Vashisht, SC and Avni Singh, Advocate; Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC, Kautilya Birat, GP and SI Ram Singh.
