The Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka on Thursday informed the Delhi high court that it had withdrawn its order expelling 31 students for non-payment of hiked fees –just minutes before the court was to pronounce its verdict in the case.

As justice Sachin Datta assembled to deliver his ruling on the parents’ plea, the school’s counsel submitted that the expulsion order had been withdrawn. The students’ names had been reinstated, subject to parents paying fees in line with an earlier order by the high court on May 16. That order directed students to pay 50% of the increased fees for the 2024-25 session, pending a final decision by the UT’s department of education (DoE).

The school’s lawyer also informed the bench that an affidavit to that effect had already been filed earlier in the week.

Taking note of the submission, justice Datta noted that the immediate controversy had become moot. However, the bench laid down clear procedural safeguards for any future actions under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The school must issue prior communication specifying the proposed date for striking a student off the rolls and must give reasonable opportunity to the students or their guardians to show cause against such action, it directed.

On Thursday, the court’s judgment, released shortly after the matter was closed, expressed “dismay” over the school’s engagement of “bouncers” to physically block students from entering the premises and called this “a reprehensible practice” that has “no place in an institute of learning.”

The judgment further pointed out the psychological impact of such coercive tactics, noting: “Public shaming/intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child. The use of ‘bouncers’ fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school.”

The court underlined the special status of educational institutions, emphasising that while schools charge fees to maintain infrastructure and staff, they “cannot be equated with a pure commercial establishment.”

It maintained: “The driving force and character of a school (particularly a school such as the petitioner, which is run by a pre-eminent society) is rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children.”

Highlighting the fiduciary and moral responsibilities schools bear towards their students, the judgment insisted on a compassionate and just approach to fee recovery without compromising students’ dignity.

The court development comes just a day after Delhi education minister Ashish Sood announced the government’s intent to bring in an ordinance to implement the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, aimed at curbing arbitrary fee hikes by private institutions.

The school struck off the names of the students on May 9 and barred them from entering the premises on May 13, triggering protests by dozens of parents. The move escalated an ongoing standoff over fee hikes, with many parents refusing to pay the revised structure without the Directorate of Education’s (DoE) approval. In response, DoE passed an order on May 15 directing immediate reinstatement of the students.

The controversy stems from DPS Dwarka’s hike in fees for the 2025-26 academic session, which over 100 parents have challenged before the high court. They demanded that the school be directed to collect only DoE-approved fees for both current and future academic years.

In their plea, the parents alleged that DPS Dwarka violated previous court orders prohibiting schools from harassing students over non-payment of unauthorised fees. They also claimed the school deployed bouncers to prevent students from entering, despite judicial restraint.

On April 16, the high court rebuked the school for treating the students in a “shabby and inhuman” manner by confining them to the library over failure to pay increased fees. Citing an inspection report by the district magistrate, the court had remarked that “the school deserves to be shut down”.

On its part, the school submitted that the action followed proper procedure of issuing show cause notice, mails, messages and phone calls after the unpaid dues of the students in question touched approximately ₹42 lakh till the academic year 2024-25. Senior advocate Pinaki Mishra, representing the school, submitted that fees collected from students was the only source of income for the school since it catered to various expenses, and the school was surviving with a deficit of ₹31 crores for over 10 years.