The Delhi High Court recently ruled that parents must bear the cost of air conditioning in schools, considering it a facility for students akin to other fees such as laboratory charges. This decision was handed down by the division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who rejected a public interest litigation (PIL).
The petition filed sought intervention from the Department of Education in Delhi to halt a private school from charging fees for air conditioning in its classrooms. In its May 2 judgment, the court sided against the petition, emphasizing parents’ responsibility to cover the costs of air conditioning as a service provided to students. The bench highlighted that this expense is comparable to other school fees and underscored the importance of parents considering facilities and associated costs when choosing an educational institution for their children. The judgment also stressed that burdening school management alone with the financial responsibility of providing such amenities is unfair.
In essence, the court’s decision highlights the need for parents to consider school facilities and associated expenses when selecting a school. It emphasizes that the school management cannot be solely responsible for funding such amenities. This ruling establishes a precedent where parents share the responsibility for funding additional services like air conditioning, ensuring a fair distribution of costs between educational institutions and families.
Manish Goel filed a PIL alleging that a private school in Delhi, attended by his child, imposed a monthly air conditioning fee of Rs 2,000. The petitioner argued that providing AC facilities is the school management’s responsibility, funded from the school’s resources. The Department of Education informed the bench that they were investigating the issue and awaiting an action-taken report based on multiple complaints.
The court noted that annexure P-2, a fee receipt, recorded charges for air conditioning for the 2023-24 session, suggesting that these charges were likely approved by the Department of Education. Considering the petitioner’s admission that air conditioning was provided to students, the court found no irregularity in the school’s fees. Consequently, the bench deemed the PIL not maintainable, stressing that the Department of Education was already handling the matter and awaiting the action-taken report, leading to the dismissal of the PIL.