Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Feb 5: Holding the role of private institutions with regard to surplus future activities in the education system, the High Court clarified the constitutional position of private unaided educational institutions in the contemporary education system.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that the commercialization and profiteering do not completely rule out the element of creating surplus for future activities or earning reasonable returns on investments.
The court asked the Government to have a fresh look on the functioning of the Private Schools by recording that it is high time the authorities also recognizes the right of a person who has made huge investments in terms of money and time to raise a private educational institution without any support from the Government to derive reasonable profits. “After all, the establishment of these private educational institutions, particularly in rural areas, has become a source of employment for unemployed educated youth”, reads the judgment.
Some private unaided schools had questioned regulatory measures affecting their autonomy, contending that such institutions are established and run without any governmental aid and are sustained entirely through investments made by individuals or educational societies.
The counsel appearing for these schools submitted that the right to establish and administer an educational institution is a protected occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and contended that private schools today require substantial financial investment in land, buildings, technology, laboratories and human resources, and therefore cannot be expected to operate on a rigid no-profit, no-surplus model.
The respondents, while defending regulatory oversight, maintained that education is not a commercial commodity and cannot be converted into a business venture. They submitted that regulation is essential to prevent exploitation of parents and students and to ensure that education remains accessible and fair.
The Bench noted that private schools were initially conceived as a supplement to public education, but over time have assumed a dominant role due to systemic deficiencies in government schools. “Private education has today virtually supplanted public education, largely because the public school system has failed to live up to the expectations of society”, The court observed.
While reiterating that education cannot be treated as a trade or business in the strict commercial sense, the Court drew a clear distinction between profiteering and permissible surplus. The Bench held that profiteering does not mean earning a surplus, and clarified that what is prohibited is the generation of excessive or unfair profit by exploiting students or parents.
The court held that commercialization and profiteering do not completely rule out the element of creating surplus for future activities or earning reasonable returns on the investments made by an individual or educational agency permitted by the State to establish an educational institution.”
Follow our WhatsApp channel
