The Union Ministry of Education’s Department of Higher Education, on Friday, directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to “examine and submit” a detailed report on the proposed Central Education Fee Regulatory Authority (CEFRA)—a statutory body to standard school and higher education fees across India.
The directive comes after the Bengaluru-based Citizen Rights Foundation (CRF), in its memorandum (dated May 9, 2025) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sought urgent legislative and executive action to curb the commercialisation of education and regulate school and higher education fees in the country.
The Foundation highlighted that the growing disparity between government schools and elite private institutions had widened social inequality, and the poor and middle-class families were being burdened and also driven into debt to secure education for their children.
Stating that the failure to regulate fees and curb the commercialisation of education was a direct breach of the constitutional promise of equality and social justice, the CRF demanded uniform laws to regulate the fees, the government to ensure affordable and equitable access to education for all citizens and to plug the corrupt practices in educational institutions through stringent legislation and active regulatory enforcement.
Citing the ‘Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka’, (1992) 3 SCC 666, the Foundation reminded that the Supreme Court had unequivocally held that education was not a commodity and that commercialisation must be curtailed. Nevertheless, without a binding and enforceable regulatory framework, these constitutional mandates remain largely unfulfilled, it rued.
Putting the focus back on the Constitutional mandate, the CRF stated that the arbitrary imposition of exorbitant fees violated the Right to Education that mandates states to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. But the current fee disparity in educational institutions violates both, it noted.
Also Read
The Supreme Court rulings in the ‘T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)’ and ‘Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) have upheld the need for fee regulation to prevent the commodification of education. The judiciary recognises that fee regulation is both legitimate and essential. Even though institutions may have autonomy, profiteering is not permissible, said CRF, expressing concern over the lack of a central fee regulator for education that has allowed the “donation culture” to thrive in private institutions.
In its recommendations, CRF sought a central law similar to the Electricity Act, 2003 be enacted to establish a Central Education Fee Regulatory Authority with binding powers to regulate fees, prevent exploitation, and enforce uniform fee structures across India. The State Education Fee Committees must have binding authority and the power to penalise violations (on the lines of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009), while fee structures for comparable levels of education (primary, secondary, higher secondary) should be standardised, with only minor variations justified objectively (e.g., infrastructure costs) and subject to regulatory approval. It called for the Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act to be enforced rigorously with stringent penalties, including cancellation of affiliations, heavy fines, and criminal prosecution of violators. Acknowledging that most private educational institutions are today run by or patronised by elected representatives and their family and friends, the CRF insisted that individuals associated with educational institutions found guilty of fee violations should be barred from holding public office or contesting elections, similar to the disqualification criteria under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
To tackle admission malpractices, all school-level admissions should be routed through centralised government counselling and admission portals, akin to the NEET and KCET models for professional courses. This will eliminate discretion-based admissions and ensure transparency, said the CRF, which sought an amendment to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 to include detailed and enforceable provisions on fee regulation and anti-capitation measures rather than leaving the matter entirely to the state’s discretion.
Following the CRF’s letter to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary issued an “urgent communication” (on June 3, 2025) to the Department of Higher Education, which in turn has asked the UGC to provide a comprehensive framework for CEFRA.
