School fee hike case: Larger bench recommended to SHC CJ

Petitioners' lawyer requests contempt proceedings against schools

KARACHI: A two-member bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) referred on Tuesday the case of school fees to the SHC chief justice (CJ), recommending the formation of a larger bench to hear the case.

The bench, comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Ashraf Jehan, was hearing a petition filed by parents of students studying at four schools, including Beaconhouse School, The City School and Foundation Public School.

A lawyer representing the petitioners argued that the SHC had earlier decided that the 2001 law which regulated schools was intact. He added that until a new policy was formed, schools could not raise their fees. He informed the bench that some schools, despite the stay order against increase in fee, had issued vouchers with more than 5% increase in the fees.



The petitioners' lawyer asked the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against those schools which raised their fees by more than 5%.

Kamal Azfar, counsel for Beaconhouse School, contended that the court had ordered the government to make a new policy in consultation with schools. He refuted the argument of the petitioners' lawyer, who said that an increase of more than 5 per cent in the school fees was illegal according to a past judgment of the SHC. Azfar claimed that the Supreme Court (SC) had annulled the SHC judgment.

The bench remarked that it was a tragedy that the government was not performing its duty and government schools were in a sorry state of affairs. Justice Abbasi observed that a comprehensive policy was needed so that parents did not feel burdened in paying school fees of their children.

There should be a comprehensive policy to govern all affairs of schools, the bench observed.



Justice Jehan questioned if there was any justification for Rs200,000 collected by schools on account of registration and admission fees.

Additional Advocate-General Shabbir Shah said people were happy when they heard the news that they would not have to play fees for the month of June and July due to court orders, to which the bench remarked that the SHC verdict had no mention of June and July fees.

The bench also remarked that the apex court had apparently only referred the case back to the high court for fresh hearing without annulling the previous SHC order.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the bench decided to recommend to the SHC CJ to form a larger bench to hear the matter.