COVID-19 and Educational Fees vs. Indian Parents — an Editorial

India is placed among the top-most affected countries in the world and according to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), over 12.2 crore people in India have lost their jobs since April following the coronavirus outbreak. This pandemic has brought “online classes” confining students and teachers in their home learning and teaching in isolation. With online classes, the responsibility of teaching and accompanying and supervising such classes has in fact shifted on parents. The infrastructure which is being used, if any, is that of the teachers at their homes and that of the parents at the home of the child. They need to invest in good quality internet connections, laptops and other systems. This raises a pertinent question as to how just and humane is for academic institutes to charge fees as usual without any respite to students and more so to their guardians.

But when nothing helps, Indian Judiciary always comes to your rescue, which is also hearing cases on various online interaction tools. Here is a prompt look at how various High Courts across the country has reacted to the plight of burdensome fees put on parents. Though most of the orders are passed in the cases involving Private Educational Institutes, legally speaking, the ratio (legal principle) is applicable to pan India Educational Institutes.

1. Delhi High Court in its order dated April 17, 2020, in W.P.© 2977/2020 in the case of Rajat Vats v. Government of NCT Delhi and Anr. upheld the directions issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE). DoE had passed an order stating therein that, the schools are not empowered to charge any fee except the tuition fee till further orders; tuition fee can be collected only on monthly basis; fees for the academic session 2020–21 cannot be increased and online classes are to be provided to the students irrespective of the inability of the student/ parent to make the payment of the fees.
2. Madras High Court in its order dated June 30, 2020, in W.P.© 8490–92/2020 in the case of Federation of Association of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu and ors. v. Government Office of Revenue and Disaster Management and ors had directed schools to formulate a scheme to allow the payment of school fees in instalments for a while, with a view to balance the interests of educational institutions and parents. In recent order in the same set of petitions, the Madras High Court has allowed private unaided institutions to collect only 40% ‘advance fees’ pending resumption of the physical classes as the Court was of the view that the immediate requirement for the present is that the institutions must “kick start” their functioning which requires some flow of funds. But the Court was also alive to the fact that “the other end of the spectrum” is that many parents are on the receiving end.
3. Lastly, it was Punjab and Haryana High Court which delivered a detailed and balanced judgement on June 30, 2020, in W.P. © №7409/2020 in the matter of Independent School’s Association Chandigarh (Regd.) & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., regarding fee relief in private educational institutions. It was held that “the school management of each school shall work out their actual expenditure incurred under the annual charges for the period the school remained closed and recover only such genuine expenditure incurred by them but shall not recover any charge for this period for any facility towards which no expenditure was incurred.”

Now as IIT Kharagpur is situated in West Bengal, it comes under the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court. Though IIT Kharagpur is not bound to follow any orders from the Delhi, Madras or Punjab and Haryana High Court, their judgements carry persuasive value for Calcutta High Court. In case any legal suit is filed before Calcutta High Court, under the Doctrine of Precedent (i.e. subsequent Courts are bound to respect earlier judgements), the Court is bound to follow the same pattern of judgements coming from different High Courts in similar facts as stated above.

Firstly, students in IIT Kharagpur are asked to pay 100% advanced fees for the upcoming semester in a very short span of 14 days, which usually ranges from 28–30 days. This is in stark contrast with the order of Delhi High Court where it has asked educational institutes to charges fees on “monthly basis” and Madras High Court order where it has emphasised on payment of fees in “instalments” and to kick start educational activities, it has allowed only 40% of the advance fees too be charged. If private unaided institutes which entirely depend on the fees received from the students for their survival and functioning and they are allowed only 40% of the advance fees that to in the instalments, there seems no reason for fully central government-funded institute to charge lump sum amount of 100% fees in advance when there is no anticipation of academic classes resuming back to physical mode.

Secondly, in all its possibilities, the semester is going to be online. In this scenario to charge fees under all other heads other than legitimate tuition fees i.e. hall and mess charges (which include water, electricity and sanitation charges), internet charges, medical charges, gymkhana charges seem unwarranted. Probably, the institute is charging this heads in the form of advanced fees in the case, the campus again starts thriving with students, but till the date students have not availed these facilities, charging of this fees is in stark contrast with the Punjab and Haryana High Court order in particular and Delhi and Madras High Court in general.

The present requisition made by the Institute for payment of such a hefty amount of fees has in all its possibilities forced parents and students to choose between basic essential commodities required to survive the pandemic versus effectively avail their Right to Uninterrupted Education.

When Indian judges deliver judgements, it ranges from 10 to 1000 pages. They have to lay down each and every reason that leads them to conclude the controversy in a particular way. Had the institute come out with not only the fees amount, but the reason for asking such hefty 100% of the fees as usual in advance amid this pandemic, then the student community would not have reacted the way they did.

Essentially two reliefs are sought for in this trying time.

1. The fees being charged for undue expenditure which will not be incurred by the Institute for the upcoming semester including but not limited to hall and mess charges (which include water, electricity and sanitation charges), internet charges, gymkhana charges, which will remain unutilized, be waived-off and only Tuition Fee be charged to the Students.
2. Fees accrued and remaining underutilized by the Institute for the Spring Semester (Jan-April 2020) should be duly accounted for by an ex-ante and ex-post comparison for the period. It is requested that based on the balance amount; a proportionate relief be granted to the students. The teachers had conducted classes and internal assessment for the semester through various online mediums. The relief(s) is without prejudice to the portion of fees which are being spent by the Institute on salary remuneration to teaching/non-teaching staff.

Disclaimer: All the statements presented here are views expressed by the Editor.