http://youtube.com/post/UgkxBF0PtXwVSmhLdag7BpubZ0widOjaMXcz?si=BkfywOp0WLsEl5UD [05/06, 11:09] sekarreporter1: Private school case : E.Vijay Anand advocate argued and notice ordered and for counter and final disposal case posted on 18.6.2026 [05/06, 11:07] sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. 21240 of 2026 All India Private Educational Institutions Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. MAIN ARGUMENTS — BULLET POINT SUMMARY of Counsel for Petitioner Vijayananth

[05/06, 11:09] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxBF0PtXwVSmhLdag7BpubZ0widOjaMXcz?si=BkfywOp0WLsEl5UD
[05/06, 11:09] sekarreporter1: Private school case : E.Vijay Anand advocate argued and notice ordered and for counter and final disposal case posted on 18.6.2026
[05/06, 11:07] sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. 21240 of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

MAIN ARGUMENTS — BULLET POINT SUMMARY of Counsel for Petitioner Vijayananth

1. Private unaided schools are NOT “Public Authorities” under the RTI Act
The RTI Act, 2005 applies only to bodies under Section 2(h): those constituted by the Constitution, by law of Parliament/State Legislature, or by Government notification. Private unaided schools satisfy none of these criteria. The Information Commission, being a creature of the RTI Act alone, had no jurisdiction to pass orders against private schools. Any such order is void ab initio and coram non judice.
[CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497; DAV College Trust v. DPI (2019) 9 SCC 185]
2. The Information Commission Grossly Exceeded its Statutory Jurisdiction
The original RTI application was a specific, individual request about fees of Coimbatore district Matriculation schools. The Commission instead passed a sweeping State-wide regulatory directive covering all private schools in Tamil Nadu (CBSE, ICSE, State Board, aided, unaided) — appointing the Director of Private Schools as PIO, directing standing orders to all school principals, mandating statewide inspections, and ordering fee disclosure on notice boards, websites and admission forms. This is a legislative/executive function, not an adjudicatory one.
[In Re: Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332]
3. The Director of Private Schools Has No Statutory Authority to Issue the Impugned Circular
The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 contains no provision empowering the
Director to compel public disclosure of fee structures. A PIO appointed under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act cannot issue regulatory circulars to hundreds of schools — that function requires express statutory authority, which is entirely absent.
[A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation (1984) 3 SCC 316]
4. Three Boards, Three Separate Regimes — CBSE and ICSE Fee Fixation is Pending Before the Supreme Court
Private schools operate under three distinct boards, each governed by a different statute:
■ State Board: Fee fixation by the Fee Fixation Committee under the Fee Regulation Act is settled and operative.
■ CBSE & ICSE: A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court had passed an order bringing these schools under the Fee Fixation Committee. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which granted a stay and clarified that the Fee Committee’s powers operate only under Section 7 of the Fee Regulation Act.
■ The entire issue of fee fixation for CBSE and ICSE schools is therefore pending and undecided before the Supreme Court. Any direction purporting to bind CBSE/ICSE schools on fee-related matters — as the Impugned Circular does — directly impinges on a live controversy before the Apex Court.
5. Fee Committee’s Own Website Already Makes Fee Information Publicly Available
For State Board schools (the only category where the Fee Committee’s authority is currently settled), the Fee Fixation Committee’s official website automatically displays a district-wise and region-wise list of all schools along with their government-approved fee structures. This information is freely and openly accessible to any member of the public at any time. Compelling schools to additionally publish the same information on their own notice boards, websites, and admission forms serves no legitimate public purpose and is unreasonable and disproportionate.
6. The Circular Unconstitutionally Purports to Bind CBSE and ICSE Schools — Violation of Article 254
Education is a Concurrent List subject (Entry 25, List III). CBSE and CISCE are autonomous
Central bodies with their own Affiliation Bye-Laws. A State legislation (Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 2018) and a State administrative circular cannot override the Central regulatory framework governing CBSE/ICSE schools. To the extent of repugnancy, the State action is void under Article 254 of the Constitution.
7. Violation of Fundamental Rights — Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21
Art. 19(1)(g): Private unaided institutions have a constitutionally protected right to administer themselves, including fee-related decisions. Any restriction must be by law and reasonable — a direction unsupported by statutory authority fails both tests.
Art. 14: The omnibus direction applies indiscriminately to all categories of schools without rational differentiation, and singles out private schools unlike any other privately-priced sector. Art. 21 / Puttaswamy: Fee structures are financially sensitive institutional information protected by the right to informational privacy. Compelled public disclosure fails the triple test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
[T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) 8 SCC 481; P.A. Inamdar (2005) 6 SCC 537; K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) 10 SCC 1]
8. Flagrant Violation of Natural Justice — No Notice, No Hearing, Four-Day Deadline
Thousands of private schools across Tamil Nadu, whose rights are directly affected, were never made parties to or heard in the RTI proceedings. The Impugned Circular was issued on 01.06.2026 with a peremptory compliance deadline of 05.06.2026 — merely four days — without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. This is a textbook violation of audi alteram partem.
[Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248]
9. Compensation and Penalty Orders are Without Foundation
Compensation of Rs.25,000 under Section 19(8)(b) and show-cause notices under Section 20(1) against education officials presuppose a valid RTI application to a public authority. Since private schools are outside the RTI Act entirely, the entire chain of proceedings is without foundation and the penalty/compensation orders are void. The information was also actually furnished before the hearing, making the compensation arbitrary and disproportionate.
[Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324]
10. Premature Disclosure Prejudices Pending Statutory Appeals
Several member schools have filed or are filing appeals against Fee Fixation Committee orders. Compelling immediate public disclosure of disputed fee figures renders the appellate remedy ineffective — parents and authorities will act on sub-judice figures, causing irreparable harm before appeals are decided.
[State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1996 SC 2173]

Dated at Chennai on this the 05th day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner