A dispute over private school fees in Jaipur has exposed a central weakness in education governance: a statutory fee-control system cannot protect families if parents do not know how to participate in it. Sanyukt Abhibhavak Sangh has alleged that schools are not adequately informing parents about parent-teacher associations (PTAs), school-level fee committees (SLFCs) and the deadlines connected with their formation. The association has sought physical verification of the committees.
The allegation concerns the implementation of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. Under the law, the SLFC determines the fees charged by private schools. Its prescribed composition includes a chairperson, a secretary, three teachers and five parent representatives. The parent representatives are selected through an online lottery, a process intended to prevent school managements from influencing the outcome.
That design places information at the centre of the regulatory system. Parents can participate only if they know that the committee is being formed, understand the application process and are aware of the deadline. If those steps are not communicated clearly, a formal right can exist on paper while participation remains limited in practice.
Sanyukt Abhibhavak Sangh spokesperson Abhishek Jain Bittu alleged that private schools were failing to adequately inform parents about PTA membership, the SLFC selection process and application deadlines. He said the lack of information had reduced participation and enabled school managements to influence the choice of parent representatives.
“If parents are unaware of SLFC and how it functions, the very purpose of the Act is defeated,” Bittu said.
The allegation is therefore about more than the amount charged as school fees. It concerns who gets to participate in the process through which those fees are fixed, whether the representatives are selected through the prescribed mechanism and whether the administrative record can demonstrate that the committee has been constituted properly.
The structure of the SLFC is significant because it seeks to distribute decision-making between school representatives and parents. The committee includes five parent representatives alongside the chairperson, secretary and three teachers. The online lottery is intended to provide a procedural safeguard against the school management controlling which parents enter the committee.
But procedural safeguards depend on implementation. An online lottery can limit direct influence only if eligible parents are informed about the process and given a genuine opportunity to apply. Similarly, a committee may meet the formal requirement of having parent representatives while still failing to reflect meaningful participation if the wider parent community was not informed about the selection.
The parents’ body has demanded physical verification of SLFCs. Its demand indicates that the dispute is moving from the question of fee levels to the question of institutional compliance. Verification would involve examining whether committees were formed as required, whether the prescribed process was followed and whether schools can produce records supporting their fee decisions.
Chandra Kiran Panwar, deputy director, Right to Education, said parents could approach the district education officer if a school uploaded fee details on the Private School Portal without SLFC approval. The DEO could examine the committee’s records and initiate action if arbitrary fee hikes were established.
This response identifies the enforcement route available to parents. The Private School Portal becomes an important administrative checkpoint: fee details uploaded by a school should have the required SLFC approval, and the district education officer can examine the records if that approval is absent or if an arbitrary increase is alleged.
The route also shows the limits of a portal-based system. A digital upload can make information available, but it does not by itself establish that parents were adequately informed before the committee was formed. Nor does the presence of a fee entry on a portal answer whether the committee was constituted through the prescribed process. Those questions depend on the records held by the school and the examination carried out by the education authorities.
An order issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education, Bikaner, on October 23 has specified timelines for committee formation. Schools beginning their academic session on April 1 must constitute PTAs between April 1 and 10. Schools starting their academic session on July 1 must do so between July 1 and 10.
For the 2027-28 academic session, the order requires schools to complete SLFC formation by December 15 and upload approved fee details by December 25. These deadlines create a compliance calendar against which schools, parents and education officials can assess whether the process has been completed on time.
The dates also clarify that fee regulation is not a single annual announcement. It involves a sequence of administrative actions: PTA formation, SLFC constitution, approval of fees and uploading of the approved details. A failure at any stage can weaken the next stage. If parents are not informed at the beginning, the committee-selection process may be affected; if the committee is not properly formed, the approval of fees may be questioned; and if approved details are not uploaded, parents may lack a clear reference point for what the school is charging.
This sequence is particularly important for urban households because private school fees are recurring expenditure rather than a one-time purchase. The report does not provide figures for the fee increases alleged by the association, nor does it identify specific schools. However, it establishes that the dispute concerns a system that determines fees for private schools and gives parents a defined role in that process.
The governance question is therefore one of access as much as regulation. A rule that gives parents representation assumes that they can receive timely information, understand the process and respond within the prescribed window. The parents’ association alleges that these conditions are not being met adequately. The education department’s response places the responsibility for examining the records with the district education officer when fee details have been uploaded without SLFC approval or when arbitrary increases are alleged.
The available material does not establish that all private schools in Jaipur have violated the Act. It records an allegation by Sanyukt Abhibhavak Sangh and a statement from a deputy director explaining the route for complaints and examination. It also records the timelines issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education. Whether individual schools failed to constitute committees correctly, failed to inform parents or fixed fees without valid approval would require examination of school-level records.
That distinction matters for accountability. A broad allegation can draw attention to a systemic concern, but enforcement must ultimately be based on specific documentation. The relevant records may include notices to parents, details of PTA and SLFC formation, lottery-related material, committee proceedings and fee approvals. The DEO’s proposed examination of records is the mechanism identified in the report for determining whether arbitrary fee hikes were established.
The episode also illustrates the difference between having a regulatory institution and making it usable. The Rajasthan law provides for SLFCs, defines their composition and establishes a process for parent representation. The Directorate of Secondary Education has now specified dates for committee formation and fee uploads. Yet the parents’ body argues that the system remains ineffective when information about the institutions is not communicated adequately.
For Jaipur’s private-school families, the immediate issue is whether their school has followed the prescribed procedure and whether fee details have been approved and uploaded through the required channel. For education officials, the issue is whether complaints can be checked against records quickly enough to prevent an allegedly arbitrary fee decision from becoming a settled charge. For the regulatory framework, the larger test is whether transparency is measured only by the existence of a portal or also by the quality of participation that precedes the upload.
The evidence currently confirms a dispute over information, committee formation and fee approval, along with an official route for complaints and record examination. It does not establish the extent of non-compliance across Jaipur’s private schools. The next significant markers are the enforcement of the October 23 timelines, the completion of SLFC formation for the 2027-28 session by December 15 and the uploading of approved fee details by December 25.
