Madras High Court frowns at mention of fee dues on school TC, says its a child's personal document

Chenna: Transfer Certificate of a child was not a tool for schools to collect pending fees but a personal document issued in the name of the former, and no entries regarding fees arrears should be made in them, the Madras High Court held on Friday.

The HC directed the Tamil Nadu government to issue circular/instructions/orders to all the schools across the State, to not to insist to produce TC by the child at the time of admission, and prohibit the school managements from making unnecessary entries in the document, including non-payment or delayed payment of fees.

A division bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and C Kumarappan which gave the above directive said that in the event of violation, action was to be initiated under Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) and under the relevant laws applicable for protection of children.

The bench also directed the state government to revisit the Tamil Nadu Education Rules and Code of regulation for matriculation schools, and accordingly, make all necessary amendments in consonance with the provisions of the RTE Act within a period of three months.

Allowing an appeal filed by the state government, the bench set aside an order of a single judge, which while allowing a petition from the All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society, found that mere indication of the arrears of fees payable by the student, does not have any negative connotation/ impact against the student and the parents.

The bench held that harassing children over non-payment or delayed payment of fees amounts to cruelty and constitutes an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The schools have every right to initiate appropriate action for recovery of the outstanding fees, if any, from the parents in accordance with law. But in the process, harassing or punishing the child over default in payment of fees was an offence and falls within the contours of Section 75 of the JJ Act, the bench added.

The court observed the schools should not involve the children in the fee collection process.

It was not necessary for the child to know the details regarding payment of tuition fees. Such information should be kept away from them to enable them to grow in a happy environment, free from stress. Children must be given an environment which was free from these burdens, allowing them to grow in a happy space. Schools should strive to provide a happy and supportive environment for children, the bench added.

The bench said a TC was not a tool for the schools to collect arrear fees from the parents or to weigh their financial capacity. It was a personal document issued in the name of the child. Schools cannot put their own problems on the child by making unnecessary entries on the TC. Payment of tuition fees was the duty of the parents towards the schools. Any default in the same ought to be recovered from the parents by the school concerned in the manner known to law.

Instead, making entries of non-payment of fees on TC in the name of the child was sheer humiliation. What will the child do if the parents fail to pay the fees. It was not their fault and to stigmatise and harass the child was a form of mental harassment under Section 17 of the RTE Act, the bench added.

It observed that once an entry as to the fees dues was made in the TC by a school, the child's entry into another institution becomes a question mark. Once arrears in fees payment was recorded in a TC, it becomes a stigma for the child. No schools would come forward to admit the child and all the more, the explicit mention of non-payment of fees on the TC will lead to socio-economic stigmatisation of the child. This strikes at the core of the RTE Act, the bench noted.

The court further observed that stigmatisation of a child over non-payment or delayed payment of tuition fee shows seeds of insecurity and results in low self-esteem. It lowers their confidence and emotionally impairs the child. Financial strains in the family often affect the children. This was rarely spoken about, but the child starts feeling insecure and burdened which in turn affects the psychological health of the child, the bench added.

The bench said children come from different socio-economic backgrounds and when the academic year begins, some families have to go through immense strain to pay their child’s tuition fee and in this process the child was made to undergo anxiety and stress.

It was the duty of the school to understand the emotional challenges faced by the child during such times and instead of burdening them, it was a time to lend their care and assistance to the child. It was a traumatic experience for the child when it receives a TC with stigmatising remarks on non-payment or delayed payment of fees. Such action by the school authorities attracts section 17 of the RTE Act, the bench added.