The directive was issued by a division bench consisting of Justices S M Subramaniam and C Kumarappan. They emphasized that any violation of this order should be dealt with under Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act and other relevant child protection laws.
Chennai: Today (19th July): The Madras High Court ruled that a child’s Transfer Certificate (TC) is a personal document and should not be used by schools to collect pending fees. The court stated that no entries regarding fee arrears should be made on the TC.
The Tamil Nadu government was instructed to issue circulars/orders to all schools, prohibiting them from requiring a TC at the time of admission and from making unnecessary entries in the document, including non-payment or delayed payment of fees.
The directive was issued by a division bench consisting of Justices S M Subramaniam and C Kumarappan. They emphasized that any violation of this order should be dealt with under Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act and other relevant child protection laws.
Additionally, the court directed the state government to revise the Tamil Nadu Education Rules and regulations for matriculation schools to align with the RTE Act within three months.
The bench ruled that harassing children over non-payment or delayed payment of fees amounts to cruelty and constitutes an offense under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Schools have the right to take appropriate legal action to recover outstanding fees from parents, but involving or punishing the child in the process is an offense under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
READ ALSO EC Opposes DMK’s Writ Petition on EVM Design|| Madras HC
The bench stated that a Transfer Certificate (TC) is not a tool for schools to collect arrears from parents or assess their financial capacity. It is a personal document issued in the name of the child. Schools cannot impose their problems on children by making unnecessary entries on the TC. The responsibility for paying tuition fees lies with the parents, and any default should be addressed with them according to the law.
While schools have the right to recover outstanding fees from parents, involving or punishing the child in the process is considered an offense.
The court stressed that children should not be involved in the fee collection process and should be kept unaware of tuition fee details to ensure they grow in a stress-free environment.
The bench also noted that making entries of non-payment of fees on a child’s TC is humiliating and stigmatizes the child, affecting their chances of admission to other schools and leading to socio-economic stigmatization.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the psychological impact of such practices on children, noting that financial strains often lead to insecurity and low self-esteem in children. Schools should provide support and understanding during these times instead of adding to the child’s stress.
The court concluded that stigmatising remarks on a TC about non-payment or delayed payment of fees cause trauma and attract Section 17 of the RTE Act.
