THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. 21240 of 2026 All India Private Educational Institutions Association Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. 21240 of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue,
Majestic Colony,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Private Schools,
Tamil Nadu Private Schools Directorate,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by the State Chief Information Commissioner,
Block No.19, Government Farm House,
Pen Bed, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
… Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, K.Palaniyappan, S/o. Kalyanasundaram, Hindu, aged about 56 years, having office at No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093, temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:–
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCUS STANDI
1. I am the State General Secretary of the All India Private Educational Institutions
Association as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case and I am competent to file this affidavit.
2. The Petitioner, the All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEIA),is a nationally registered association duly representing private educational institutions of all categories across Tamil Nadu and India, including CBSE-affiliated, ICSE/CISCE-affiliated, Matriculation, Nursery and Primary, Higher Secondary, and other unaided and aided private schools. The Petitioner has consistently engaged with constitutional and statutory authorities on matters affecting the welfare of private educational institutions and has locus standi to challenge administrative action that adversely affects the rights and interests of its member institutions.
3. The present Writ Petition challenges two connected and mutually reinforcing ordersthat together threaten to fundamentally alter the legal relationship between private unaided educational institutions and the State through executive and quasi-judicial overreach:
• First, the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent (Tamil
Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 and
SA17794/A/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned IC Order”), which — without jurisdiction over private unaided educational institutions — directed the Director of Private Schools to act as Public Information Officer in this case, ordered mandatory disclosure of fee structures by all private schools under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, purported to appoint Dr. S. Sukanya (Director, Private Schools) as PIO under Section 19(8)(a)(ii), and directed show-cause proceedings under Section 20(1) against multiple education officials threatening penalties of Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000.
• Second, the direction issued by the Second Respondent — the Director ofPrivate Schools, Tamil Nadu — vide Proc. No. ୰.க.ெண்.04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 (hereinafter “the Impugned Circular”), issued in purported implementation of the Impugned IC Order, directing all private schools across Tamil Nadu to publicly disclose fee structures on notice boards, websites, and admission application forms by 05.06.2026.
4. Both the Impugned IC Order and the Impugned Circular are without jurisdiction,ultra vires, and unconstitutional for the reasons elaborated hereinunder. The Impugned Circular, being entirely derived from and dependent upon the Impugned IC Order, is void a fortiori if the IC Order is void; but it is also independently challenged on grounds of lack of statutory authority, violation of fundamental rights, and breach of natural justice. Consequential district-level circulars issued by various District Educational Officers (DEOs) in furtherance of the Impugned Circular — including Proc. No.
୰.க.ெண்.304/ா/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the DEO (Private Schools), Sivaganga — are also void as derived instruments.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. One Mr. M. Liyakath Ali filed an application dated 26.10.2022 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information in 3 particulars concerning fee structures/rules fixed/permissible for private matriculation higher secondary schools in accordance with Government guidelines. The application was addressed to the Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant to the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District.
6. Instead of providing information, the PIO transferred the application under Section6(3) on 28.10.2022 to the District Education Officer (Private Schools), Coimbatore. The DEO (Private Schools) in turn, without providing any information, transferred the application on 26.11.2022 to all Matriculation Higher Secondary School Principals in Coimbatore District — an irregular transfer to over a hundred third-party entities. No information was provided within the statutory 30-day period or at all.
7. The Applicant filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) on 22.11.2022, which wasalso not disposed of. Two Second Appeals under Section 19(3) were filed on 11.03.2023 and 09.10.2023. The case was taken up by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (Third Respondent) and heard on 08.04.2026 by video conference.
8. By the Impugned IC Order dated 25.05.2026, the Information Commission passedwide-ranging directions going far beyond the subject matter of the original RTI application. Critically, the Commission: (a) ordered compensation of Rs.25,000 against the public authority under Section 19(8)(b); (b) issued show-cause notices to three education officials under Section 20(1) for penalties of Rs.250/day up to Rs.25,000 each; (c) appointed the Director of Private Schools (Dr. S. Sukanya) as PIO in this case under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) and directed her to issue operational orders to all private school principals; (d) directed all private school managements — including CBSE and aided schools — to display fee structures on notice boards, websites, and admission forms; and (e) directed all District CEOs to inspect compliance and submit district-wise reports.
9. In purported implementation of the Impugned IC Order, the Second Respondentissued the Impugned Circular dated 01.06.2026 requiring all private schools to publish government-fixed fee structures by 05.06.2026 and directing inspection by CEOs and DEOs with submission of compliance reports by 10.06.2026.
10. The Petitioner was not made as a party and none of the education institutions wereheard before passing the order. As such, by the impugned orders, the entire educational institutions throughout the state who are not made as a party are being victimised by asking them to comply with directions which are illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. The Petitioner challenges the order of the information commission as a third party aggrieved person.
III. QUESTIONS OF LAW
10. The present Writ Petition raises the following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 applies to private unaidededucational institutions, and whether such institutions are “public authorities” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act?
(b) Whether the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has jurisdiction to passorders against private unaided educational institutions, and to appoint the Director of Private Schools as PIO under Section 19(8)(a)(ii), when such schools are not public authorities under the RTI Act?
(c) Whether the Information Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the
RTI Act by passing suo motu directions of a legislative and regulatory character
— amounting to a general policy mandate for all private schools in Tamil Nadu — that go far beyond the adjudication of the individual RTI application before it?
(d) Whether the Information Commission’s order directing compensation underSection 19(8)(b) and penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) is sustainable when the underlying RTI application itself was outside the scope of the RTI Act as against private unaided schools?
(e) Whether the Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu, has statutory powerunder the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 to issue a direction compelling private unaided schools to disclose their fee structure to the general public, in the absence of an express statutory provision?
(f) Whether CBSE-affiliated and ICSE-affiliated schools are subject todirections of the State School Education Department in matters of fee disclosure, given the distinct Central regulatory framework?
(g) Whether compelled public disclosure of fee structures, without statutorybacking, violates the fundamental rights of private unaided schools under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India?
(h) Whether the issuance of a direction with a compliance deadline of fourdays, without prior notice or hearing, violates the principles of natural justice?
IV. GROUNDS
11. The Petitioner respectfully urges the following grounds in support of this Writ Petition:
GROUND I: THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION — PRIVATE UNAIDED SCHOOLS ARE NOT “PUBLIC AUTHORITIES” UNDER SECTION 2(h) OF THE RTI ACT
a. The RTI Act, 2005 confers rights and imposes obligations exclusively upon “publicauthorities” as defined under Section 2(h). The definition encompasses only bodies established or constituted: (i) by or under the Constitution; (ii) by any other law made by Parliament; (iii) by any other law made by State Legislature; or (iv) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. Private unaided educational institutions, established and managed by private trusts, societies, and individuals without substantial State funding or direct State control, do not satisfy any of the four criteria in Section 2(h). No notification by the appropriate Government has brought them within the RTI framework.
b. This is not a marginal legal question. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Supreme Court exhaustively interpreted Section 2(h) and firmly held that the RTI Act applies only to public authorities as defined; bodies not answering that definition cannot be brought within its ambit by executive instructions or commission orders. The Court further held in DAV College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, (2019) 9 SCC 185, that mere affiliation with a statutory board does not ipso facto render a private institution a public authority under the RTI Act.
c. The Third Respondent is a creature of statute constituted under Section 15 of theRTI Act; its jurisdiction is wholly circumscribed by the four corners of that Act. It has no authority to pass orders against entities that are not “public authorities”. Any order so passed is coram non judice and is void ab initio: Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340. The Impugned IC Order, to the extent it issues directions against and concerning private unaided school managements, is void ab initio.
d. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that private schools were treated as public authorities, they would be entitled to claim exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act (commercial confidence and trade secrets) and Section 8(1)(j) (personal information causing unwarranted invasion of privacy). The fee structure of a school — reflecting its operational costs, capital plans, and institutional projections — partakes of commercially sensitive information. No adjudication of these exemptions was conducted by the Information Commission.
GROUND II: THE INFORMATION COMMISSION EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY JURISDICTION BY PASSING WIDE LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DIRECTIONS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE RTI APPLICATION
a. The RTI application filed by Mr. Liyakath Ali was a specific request for informationin three particulars concerning fee structures of private matriculation higher secondary schools in Coimbatore District. The Information Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act is limited to adjudicating such specific second appeals — examining whether information was wrongly denied and directing its provision where appropriate.
b. The Impugned IC Order goes far beyond this limited adjudicatory mandate. TheCommission: (a) purported to appoint the Director of Private Schools as PIO in the case under Section 19(8)(a)(ii); (b) directed the Director to issue operational standing orders to all private school principals across Tamil Nadu; (c) directed all District CEOs to conduct inspections and file district-wise compliance reports; (d) directed display of fee structures at school entrances, on websites, and in admission forms — a general regulatory mandate applicable statewide. These directions are in the nature of subordinate legislation and executive policy, functions that are constitutionally vested in the Legislature and the Executive, not in a statutory complaints body.
c. The Information Commission is not a court of general jurisdiction. Its powers underSection 19(8) are remedial and specific: it may require disclosure of information, recommend disciplinary action, impose penalties under Section 20. It cannot act as a regulator, a policymaker, or a legislature. The exercise of legislative power by a statutory authority beyond the scope of the statute constituting it is void: In Re: The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, AIR 1951 SC 332.
d. The power under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) to “appointment of a person who shall beregarded as the PIO” is a remedial measure in an individual case where a public authority has failed to designate a PIO or where the designated PIO is unavailable. It cannot be used as a mechanism to rope in an entirely different statutory authority (the Director of Private Schools) as PIO in a case where the original proceedings concerned a different public authority (the CEOs/DEOs of Coimbatore). The Commission’s use of Section 19(8)(a)(ii) to create a State-wide regulatory mechanism is a clear misapplication of the provision.
GROUND III: THE COMPENSATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 19(8)(b) AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 20(1) ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VITIATED
a. The Information Commission directed the current PIO to pay compensation ofRs.25,000 to the RTI applicant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Simultaneously, it initiated show-cause proceedings under Section 20(1) against three education officials threatening penalties of Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000 each.
b. Section 19(8)(b) empowers the Commission to “require the public authority tocompensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.” Section 20(1) empowers it to impose penalties on a PIO who has without reasonable cause denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. These provisions presuppose a valid RTI application to a public authority. Where, as here, the information sought pertained to private schools which are not public authorities under the Act, the entire chain of RTI proceedings is without foundation, and neither compensation nor penalties can flow from void proceedings.
c. Furthermore, the Commission’s own order records that the information wasprovided (on 20.06.2025) before the hearing on 08.04.2026, and that the PIO undertook to provide complete information. In such circumstances, levying compensation of Rs.25,000 on grounds of mental anguish and hardship suffered years earlier — without conducting a proper causation inquiry — is arbitrary and disproportionate: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324 (proportionality in administrative action).
GROUND IV: THE DIRECTOR OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS HAS NO STATUTORY POWER TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR — THE DIRECTION IS ULTRA VIRES
a. The Second Respondent, the Director of Private Schools, is a statutory authoritywhose powers are circumscribed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 (“the 2018 Act”) and the Rules thereunder. A careful examination of the 2018 Act reveals no provision empowering the Director to direct private schools to make public disclosure of their fee structures on notice boards, websites, and admission forms as a standing general obligation.
b. The fee fixation mechanism under the 2018 Act is a separate, structuredquasi-judicial process resulting in orders of the Fee Fixation Committee. The obligation of a school to comply with such orders is wholly distinct from an obligation to publicly broadcast the fee structure through multiple channels. The latter obligation has no statutory anchor in the 2018 Act or in any other law. An authority cannot bootstrap an illegal IC order to create jurisdiction it otherwise does not possess: A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation, (1984) 3 SCC 316.
c. The Second Respondent also cannot derive authority from Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of theRTI Act by virtue of being appointed as PIO by the Information Commission in this case. A PIO’s functions under the RTI Act are to receive and process information requests and appeals within the RTI framework. They do not include issuing regulatory circulars to hundreds of private schools mandating specific disclosure practices in their physical premises and online platforms. Such functions require express statutory authority, which is entirely absent here.
GROUND V: THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR UNLAWFULLY PURPORTS TO BIND CBSE AND ICSE SCHOOLS — EXCEEDING STATE JURISDICTION
a. The Impugned Circular explicitly addresses itself to CBSE-affiliated and othercentrally-affiliated schools, in addition to State-recognised private schools. This is constitutionally impermissible. Education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III, Seventh Schedule). The CBSE and CISCE are autonomous bodies operating under Central Government authority, with their own Affiliation Bye-Laws. Schools affiliated to these bodies are governed in matters of internal administration by Central regulations, which the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 — a State legislation — does not override.
b. By virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, a State law is void to the extent ofrepugnancy with a Central law on a Concurrent List subject. A State administrative circular attempting to impose disclosure obligations upon CBSE/ICSE schools, in conflict with or in excess of the Central regulatory framework, is repugnant to the constitutional scheme and is void.
GROUND VI: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(g) — COMPELLED DISCLOSURE WITHOUT LAW IS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION
a. Private unaided educational institutions have a constitutionally protectedfundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, unanimously affirmed that this right includes decisions on matters integral to institutional functioning, including fee-related decisions, subject only to reasonable regulation by law preventing exploitation.
b. Any restriction upon rights under Article 19(1)(g) must satisfy the twin requirementsunder Article 19(6): it must be (a) imposed by “law”, and (b) a “reasonable restriction” in the interests of the general public. A direction in an administrative circular unsupported by specific statutory authority does not constitute “law” within the meaning of Article 19(6). Only a law made by Parliament or the State Legislature, or valid subordinate legislation framed under such law, can constitute the “law” under Article 19(6): Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615. The Impugned Circular and the Impugned IC Order, being neither law nor valid subordinate legislation, fail at the first threshold and are unconstitutional. In Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583, the Supreme Court emphasised that regulation of school fees must be by law and not by executive fiat.
c. Even if treated as “law”, compelling a private school to broadcast its fee structure tothe entire world via public notice boards, publicly accessible websites, and admission forms — without any finding of exploitation or overcharging — is disproportionate and cannot qualify as a “reasonable restriction”. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537, the Supreme Court held that while the State may regulate fees to prevent profiteering, private unaided non-minority institutions retain administrative autonomy, and intervention must be proportionate and through law.
GROUND VII: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 — ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL APPLICATION
a. The Impugned IC Order and the Impugned Circular apply indiscriminately to allprivate schools — aided, unaided, Matriculation, CBSE, ICSE, Nursery, Primary, Higher Secondary — without any differentiation between categories actually subject to the RTI Act or the Fee Fixation Committee’s jurisdiction, and those that are not. This omnibus, undifferentiated application constitutes a manifestly arbitrary classification in violation of Article 14. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, the Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and that any arbitrary State action violates Article 14.
b. It is further submitted that the Information Commission’s direction specificallysingles out private schools for a public disclosure mandate that applies to no other category of private enterprise operating under government-approved pricing mechanisms (such as private hospitals, private utilities, etc.). This differential treatment without rational basis violates Article 14: Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 (manifest arbitrariness as a ground of invalidity).
GROUND VIII: VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE — NO NOTICE, NO HEARING TO AFFECTED INSTITUTIONS
a. The Information Commission’s Impugned IC Order passes wide-ranging directionsaffecting the rights of thousands of private schools across Tamil Nadu. None of these schools were made parties or afforded any opportunity of hearing before the Information Commission. The RTI proceedings were between the applicant and the education authorities of Coimbatore District alone. Yet the IC Order binds all private schools in Tamil Nadu. This is a fundamental violation of the principle of audi alteram partem: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; State of Orissa v. Dr.
Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
b. Similarly, the Impugned Circular was issued on 01.06.2026 with a compliancedeadline of 05.06.2026 — a period of merely four days — without any prior notice to or hearing of the affected private schools. The peremptory four-day deadline, combined with the absence of prior notice, renders the Impugned Circular a textbook violation of natural justice. In Maneka Gandhi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, and that any action affecting fundamental rights must comply with natural justice regardless of whether the statute expressly requires it.
GROUND IX: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY — ARTICLE 21 READ WITH PUTTASWAMY
a. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, encompassing informational privacy — the right of every person and entity to control information about themselves. The fee structure of a private school embodies sensitive financial and institutional information that the school has a legitimate privacy interest in protecting from indiscriminate public disclosure.
b. Compelling unrestricted public disclosure of such information on notice boards,publicly accessible websites, and admission forms — without statutory authority and without adjudicated justification — violates informational privacy rights. Any interference with privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. None of these tests are satisfied by the Impugned IC Order or the Impugned Circular.
GROUND X: PREMATURE PUBLICATION PREJUDICES PENDING STATUTORY APPEALS UNDER THE 2018 ACT
a. The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 provides a statutory right ofappeal to private schools aggrieved by orders of the Fee Fixation Committee. Several member schools of the Petitioner have either already filed, or are in the process of filing, appeals against fee structures fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee, the quantum of fees being sub judice.
b. The Impugned Circular, by compelling immediate mandatory public disclosure offee structures that are under appeal, irreparably prejudices the schools’ statutory appellate rights. Once published, a school faces claims and complaints from parents and authorities arising from a disputed fee figure — thereby rendering the appeal remedy ineffective. This directly conflicts with the maxim that a statutory appeal must have meaningful efficacy: State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1996 SC 2173.
GROUND XI: THE DIRECTION TO DISPLAY FEE STRUCTURES UNDER SECTION 4(1)(b) OF THE RTI ACT IS A MISAPPLICATION OF THE PROVISION
a. The Impugned IC Order purports to direct compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of theRTI Act, which requires public authorities to maintain and publish 17 specific categories of information suo motu. This provision applies only to public authorities as defined under Section 2(h). As demonstrated above, private unaided schools are not public authorities. The Commission’s direction to private school managements to comply with Section 4(1)(b) is therefore a misapplication of the provision, seeking to extend the RTI Act’s proactive disclosure obligations to entities outside its ambit.
b. Further, Section 4(1)(b) does not specifically require disclosure of fee structures inthe form directed by the Commission — on school notice boards, websites, and admission forms. Even if Section 4(1)(b) applied (which is denied), the specific mode of disclosure mandated by the IC Order goes beyond what the provision requires.
V. PRAYERS
In the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records pertaining to:
(i) the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent (Tamil
Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 &
SA17794/A/2023; and
(ii) the consequential impugned communication Proc.No.Na.Ka.No
04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent (Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu), being the circular issued in purported implementation of the aforesaid order of the Information Commission, and upon examination of the said records, quash and set aside both the aforesaid order and the said consequential circular, the same being illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005, and ultra vires the Constitution of India, and being violative of the fundamental rights of private unaided educational institutions guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(b) Consequently, issue a direction directing the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, agents, and all persons acting through or under them, from in any manner implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 and/or the impugned circular Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, or from taking any coercive, punitive, or adverse action against any private school, educational institution, or education official in furtherance of or pursuant to the said impugned orders;
(c) Pass such other and further orders, writs, directions, or declarations as thisHonourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
VI. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
Pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner most humbly and urgently prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
(i) Stay the operation of the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 and the consequential impugned circular Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, in their entirety, pending disposal of this Writ Petition; and
(ii) Issue an Interim direction directing the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, agents, and all persons acting through or under them, from in any manner implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 and/or the impugned circular
Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, or from taking any coercive, punitive, or adverse action against any private school, educational institution, or education official in furtherance of or pursuant to the said impugned orders;
(iii) Dispense with production of the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023; the consequential impugned communication Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent (Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu).
(iv) Pass such other and further orders, writs, directions, or declarations as thisHonourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on
This the 02nd day of June 2026 and Before Me, Signed his name in my presence.
Advocate – Chennai 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
Sr.No Date Particulars Page No.
1. 03.06.2026 Synopsis and Dates and Events
2. 03.06.2026 Coding Sheet
3. 03.06.2026 Court Fee
4. 03.06.2026 Writ Petition
5. 03.06.2026 Dispense with Petition
6. 03.06.2026 Direction Petition
7. 03.06.2026 Stay Petition
8. 03.06.2026 Common Affidavit filed by the Petitioner
9. 25.05.2026 Impugned Order passed by the 3rd Respondent (Tamil Nadu Information
Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

INDEX TO THE TYPED SET

It is certified that the above documents are true copies of the original.
Sr.No Date Particulars Page No.
10. 01.06.2026 Impugned Circular — Proc. No. Na.Ka.No.04303 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the
Director of Private Schools
Typed Set of Documents
11. 25.05.2026 Impugned Order passed by the 3rd Respondent under the Right to Information
Act
12. 01.06.2026 Impugned Circular issued by the Director of Private Schools
13. 01.06.2026 Communication by the District Education Officer
14. — Certificate of Registration along with member list
15. 03.06.2026 Vakalath
16. 03.06.2026 Batta
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHALLENGE

The All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEIA) has filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging, first, the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the
Tamil Nadu Information Commission in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023, and second, the consequential circular Proc. No.
୰.க.ெண்.04303/_ี 2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Director of Private Schools — both of which seek to compel all private schools across Tamil Nadu, including CBSE and ICSE-affiliated institutions, to publicly display their fee structures on notice boards, websites, and admission forms — on the following core grounds: that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not apply to private unaided educational institutions as they are not “public authorities” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, rendering the Information Commission entirely without jurisdiction and its order void ab initio and coram non judice; that the Commission exceeded its limited adjudicatory mandate under the RTI Act by issuing a sweeping State-wide regulatory directive — a legislative and executive function — far beyond the scope of the individual RTI application before it; that the Director of Private Schools has no statutory authority under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 to issue such a compulsory public-disclosure mandate, and cannot derive such power by acting upon a jurisdictionally void order of the Commission; that the Circular unconstitutionally purports to bind CBSE and ICSE schools which fall under the Central regulatory framework, in violation of Article 254 of the Constitution; that compelling public disclosure of fee structures without any backing in law constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental rights of private institutions guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution; and that the entire exercise is vitiated by a flagrant breach of natural justice, inasmuch as thousands of private schools — whose rights and interests are directly and adversely affected — were never made parties to or heard in the RTI proceedings, and were given a peremptory compliance deadline of merely four days without any prior notice, warning, or opportunity to be heard.
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner 
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue,
Majestic Colony,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Private Schools,
Tamil Nadu Private Schools Directorate,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, rep. by the State Chief Information Commissioner,
Block No.19, Government Farm House,
Pen Bed, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
… Respondents

WRIT PETITION

The address for service of all notices and process on the petitioner is that of his counsel
E.VIJAY ANAND & R.BASKARAN, Advocates, O/o Madras High Court Advocate Association, High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104.
The address for service of all notices and process on the respondents is as stated above.
In the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records pertaining to:
(i) the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent (Tamil
Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 &
SA17794/A/2023; and
(ii) the consequential impugned communication Proc.No.Na.Ka.No
04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent (Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu), and upon examination of the said records, quash and set aside both the aforesaid order and the said consequential circular, the same being illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, ultra vires the Right to
Information Act, 2005, and ultra vires the Constitution of India;
(b) Consequently, issue a direction directing the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, agents, and all persons acting through or under them, from in any manner implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the impugned order and/or impugned circular, or from taking any coercive, punitive, or adverse action against any private school, educational institution, or education official in furtherance thereof;
(c) Pass such other and further orders, writs, directions, or declarations as thisHonourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner 
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P. No. of 2026
In
W.P. No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

PETITION TO DISPENSE WITH

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with production of the impugned order dated
25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023; and the consequential impugned communication Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent (Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu) and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P. No. of 2026
In
W.P. No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

STAY PETITION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to INTERIM STAY the operation of the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission in Case Nos.
SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 and the consequential impugned circular
Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, in their entirety, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner 
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.M.P. No. of 2026
In
W.P. No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

DIRECTION PETITION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an Interim direction directing the Respondents, their officers, subordinates, agents, and all persons acting through or under them, from in any manner implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Third Respondent in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 and/or the impugned circular Proc.No.Na.Ka.No 04303/ี_2/2026 dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, or from taking any coercive, punitive, or adverse action against any private school, educational institution, or education official in furtherance of or pursuant to the said impugned orders, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
All India Private Educational Institutions Association
Represented by its State General Secretary K.Palaniyappan
No.5, M.P.Avenue, Majestic Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
…Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 & 2 Others
… Respondents/Respondents

Sr.No Date Events
1. 25.05.2026 Impugned Order passed by the 3rd Respondent (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) in Case Nos. SA4827/A/2023 & SA17794/A/2023 under the Right to Information Act.
2. 01.06.2026 Impugned Circular — Proc. No. Na.Ka.No.04303/S2/2026 — issued by the Director of Private Schools, Tamil Nadu, directing all private schools to publicly disclose fee structures by
05.06.2026.
3. 01.06.2026 Communication issued by the District Education Officer (Private Schools), Sivaganga, in furtherance of the Impugned Circular.
4. 03.06.2026 Filing of the present Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.
DATES AND EVENTS

Dated at Chennai on this the 03rd day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
M/s. E. VIJAY ANAND
Ms.No.1438/2001
& R.BASKARAN
Ms.No.2560/2011
Counsel for Petitioner