Madras HC Sets Aside RTI Fee Order

Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 08 July 2026

Case Overview

• Petitioners: All India Private Educational Institutions Association, represented by State General Secretary K. Palaniyappan, seeking quash of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission’s order dated 25‑05‑2026 (Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023) and the consequential circular issued by the Director of Private Schools on 01‑06‑2026 (Proc. No. Na.Ka.No.04303/உ2/2026).
• Respondents: 1) State of Tamil Nadu (Principal Secretary, School Education Department), 2) Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu, 3) Tamil Nadu Information Commission (State Chief Information Commissioner).
• Background: An RTI application filed on 26‑10‑2022 sought fee‑structure details of private matriculation and higher‑secondary schools. The application was transferred to district officials and then to over a hundred school principals, resulting in no response within the statutory 30‑day period. Subsequent appeals under Sections 19(1), 19(3) of the RTI Act were dismissed, leading the Information Commission to issue an order on 25‑05‑2026 directing the Director of Private Schools to act as Public Information Officer, impose a Rs 25,000 compensation, levy penalties of Rs 250 per day up to Rs 25,000, and issue operational orders for all private schools to conspicuously display fee structures on notice boards, websites and admission forms. The Director issued a circular on 01‑06‑2026 directing compliance by 05‑06‑2026 and reporting by 10‑06‑2026.
• The petition argued that private unaided schools are not “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, rendering the Commission’s directions ultra vires, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
• Respondents contended that the schools are already required to display fee details under Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 and that the fee structure is publicly available on the Fee Determination Committee website.

Final Outcome

• The Court held that private unaided educational institutions are not “public authorities” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, as they are neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the Government. Consequently, the Information Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the sweeping directions and to impose penalties or compensation.
• The portion of the impugned order imposing penalty on officials of the Director of Private Schools and ordering compensation to the RTI applicant is set aside.
• The direction to the Director of Private Schools to ensure display of fee structures at school entrances is modified. The Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, directs all private schools to display the fee structure fixed by the Fee Determination Committee, as well as any other fees approved under Section 32 of the Private Schools Act, on notice boards and websites, updating them one month before the commencement of each academic year, in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules.
• All connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed; no order as to costs.

Topics: RTI Act, Education Fee Disclosure, Private Schools Regulation