Nagpur: After the Maharashtra government invited suggestions on amending the ‘Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2011’, a city-based lawyer demanded suo motu powers to its officials to inspect private schools’ records and accounts to check if the fees charged are justified or not.
The government was compelled to invite suggestions after receiving several complaints from aggrieved parents against private schools coercing them to pay the entire fees, even when classroom teaching was not conducted.
Nitin Lalwani, practicing at the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, in his letter insisted on more powers to the government under Section 12 of the Act to issue directives to schools relating to modifying the fee structure if there are some compelling reasons, like the Coving -19 pandemic.
“The practice of charging exorbitant fees by educational institutions was on the rise. There was a need to take steps to prevent commercialization of education through profiteering by educational institutions. To curb this practice, the 2011 enactment was brought with the objective to regulate fees in Maharashtra,” the letter said.
Highlighting the amendment made in the act in 2019, Lalwani said that though it was brought to empower parents to approach authorities constituted under the act, it was damaging to them as it tilts the balance in the management’s favour.
“With this amendment, the concept of aggrieved parents’ group was introduced, which means not less than 25% from the affected standard or school, who oppose any decision taken by the management. Due to this quota, the management is in a secure position to declare fees as per its whims and fancies, as it was absolved from the obligation to approach the Executive Parent Teacher Association (EPTA) with a proposal to approve the fees.”
Praying for repealing the 2019 amendment in Section 6 of the Act, the lawyer said it was diluted to suit the management’s convenience. “The management can be well within the four corners of the law and still exploit parents by profiteering. Thus, the government’s efforts to curb commercialization are half-hearted and the parents have been given a raw deal,” he said.
LAWYER’S SUGGESTIONS:
* Section 2 (a-1) to be amended & threshold for forming aggrieved parents group may be reduced from 25% to 10%
* Section 4 (2)(a) (v) to be amended & parents to be given more representation
* No of parents to be inducted in school’s executive committee to be increased from 13 to 15
* Section 6 (1A) to (1C) inserted through amendment on August 26, 2019, should be deleted
* Position as existed prior to this amendment needs to be restored