Due Process Denied: Bombay High Court Stalls State Moves to Defund Private Schools

In a significant verdict protecting the administrative rights of educational institutions, the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur has ruled that the State of Maharashtra cannot unilaterally strip schools of their grant-in-aid status without affording them an opportunity to be heard. The bench, comprising Justice Madhav J. Jamdar and Justice Pravin S. Patil , struck down the enforcement of Government Resolutions (G.Rs) dated April 1, 2026, and April 2, 2026, which sought to disqualify hundreds of primary and secondary schools across the state.

The Backdrop: A "Drastic" Policy Shift

The dispute arose after the State Government issued G.Rs effectively disqualifying 433 primary schools and 324 secondary schools from receiving grant-in-aid. The government cited failure to meet assessment norms and directed these schools to apply for "Self-Financed" status under the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 . Failure to do so by April 30, 2026, would trigger automatic cancellation of recognition, with students being forcibly transferred to government or local authority schools.

Arguments: Discretion vs. Natural Justice

The petitioners—a collective of educational societies—argued that the state’s action was not only arbitrary but procedurally flawed. Their primary grievance was the absolute absence of a hearing opportunity. They contended that their previous legal status as recognized, grant-in-aid eligible schools was being extinguished without any process, violating the core tenets of natural justice.

The State, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, defended the policy, arguing that the schools had repeatedly failed to meet criteria laid down in a 2011 resolution. The State insisted that its assessment mechanism was robust and that the disqualification was a natural consequence of persistent non-compliance.

Key Observations: The Court’s Reasoning

The High Court’s ruling underscored that arbitrary state action is the "sworn enemy of the rule of law." The bench highlighted several critical oversights by the government:

• Failure of Due Process: “The action taken... of closing down the primary schools without granting them opportunity of hearing is in violation of principles of natural justice.”
• Arbitrary Exercise of Power: Recalling the Apex Court’s guidance in S.G. Jaysinghani Vs. Union of India , the judges noted: “In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon the executing authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits.”
• Neglect of Human Impact: The court expressed judicial concern over the potential displacement of students and the uncertain fate of the teaching and non-teaching staff, factors the state failed to address before opting for a "drastic" solution.
• Legal Inconsistency: The judges noted that the State’s move to force schools into the Self-Finance Act model disregarded the existing status of these schools under the Secondary School Code , which provides a specific, legally mandated mechanism for any withdrawal of recognition.

A Landmark Directive

The Court ultimately quashed the impugned orders as they applied to the petitioner institutions. The State Government has been explicitly directed to delete the names of these schools from the disqualification lists published with the government resolutions.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to administrative bodies that even in the pursuit of maintaining institutional standards, the government is not exempted from the foundational duty of acting fairly. For the hundreds of Marathi-medium schools impacted by this order, the judgment provides a temporary reprieve and ensures that no institution in Maharashtra can be shut down or defunded without first having its day in court—or at least, its voice heard in the Secretariat.