After forcing schools to close as the COVID-19 pandemic turns to online classrooms, the Supreme Court said Monday that educational institutions are cutting fees.

     Since the remainder of their costs have been closed with the various facilities available on campus.

     One of the judges, AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, said management of educational institutions should be sensitive to the problems people face due to the pandemic and take steps to introduce suicide to students and their parents during these trying times.  It states that insisting on paying for facilities granted to students will limit profit, which should be avoided by schools.

     Parents can be a part of the school fee structure reform process, today s.c.

     “Under the law, the school administration cannot be heard to collect fees related to activities and facilities that were not actually provided or received by their students due to circumstances beyond their control. Such activities but even a claim for fees in relation to public expenses would be nothing less than engaging in profiteering.  It is a well-known fact and it can also be taken court notice that due to the complete closure, schools should be allowed to spend long hours during the 2020-21 academic year. It was not opening time and as a result, the school administration would have saved overheads and recurring costs such as gasoline / diesel, electricity,  Maintenance costs, water charges, stationery fees, etc., the platform said.

     Contrary to directives by the state government to withdraw 30% of tuition fees during the pandemic, the court said there is no law obligating the state government to pass such an order, but it agreed to reduce fees for schools.

     Accordingly, the appellants are justified and must be successful in accepting the matter by the Director of Secondary Education.  However, it does not allow appellants to be rude and insensitive about the repercussions of the pandemic.  The school administration is believed to be involved in charitable activity to impart education, and it is expected that they will be sensitive to this situation and remain alive and take necessary remedial measures to alleviate the suffering of students and their parents.  Let's go.  This is for the scheduled payment of the school administration.

     In this way, no student is deprived of the opportunity to pursue his education de ala / de ala de alla de alla, in order to influence the proverb - live and let live, ”Peetha said.

     Parents seeking to lower fees to the bench said schools have saved an enormous amount of money during online classes for electricity fees, water fees, stationery fees and other miscellaneous fees, which are essential for the actual operation of the school.

     The parents disagreed, the seat said, “In fact, the overheads and operating costs have saved so much that nothing will happen, but it is not desirable by the school without providing such facilities to students during the relevant period and the amount earned is ... you should enter.  Professional theory goes into effect. However, accurate (realistic) empirical data has not been presented from both sides about the type of savings the school administration has received. Is obtained, obtained, or could be obtained. Without insisting on a mathematical precision approach, we will assume that the school administration  It would have saved about 15 percent of the annual school fees. "

     In order to provide relief to the students, the council said the fees should have been appealed by the organizing authority, but decided to pass an order with a deduction of at least 15 percent to settle the problem once and for all.

     The appellant (the schools administration for privately funded schools) must deposit the annual school fees from his students for the 201920 academic year as prescribed under the 2016 law, but by deducting this amount by 15 percent, instead of the available facilities.  Students must be during the relevant period of the 2020-21 academic year.

     The court instructed schools not to deposit unpaid / unpaid fees or fees to any student for attending online classes or physical classes.

     Decision-making without looking at the pros and cons has become the new direction for SC.  Instead, why not require MLAs and MPs to verify their paychecks?  Why only private school teachers?  Why not a government school, college or other professional educational institution?  Governments can cut public school teachers' salaries to cope with the financial crisis.  Private school teachers work harder than they do.  Why this distinction?  The Supreme Committee should assess the fact that school fees were reduced last year, which teachers have mostly paid out of their salaries.  Moreover, there is no clarity as to who can actually take advantage of this feature.  Not many parents who are wealthy, financially prosperous, or do government business should qualify for this facility.  But without fail, he chose to pay less.