"Don't use TC as tool to extract pending fees, it is a child's personal document": Madras HC

The transfer certificate (TC) 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 (HC) held today, Friday, July 19. This was stated in a report by PTI.

The high court directed the Tamil Nadu (TN) government to issue circulars/instructions/orders to all the schools across the state, not to insist on producing TC by the child at the time of admission, and prohibit the school management from making unnecessary entries in the document, including non-payment or delayed payment of fees.

A division bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan which gave the above directive said that in the event of a violation, the 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 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 following the 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. The child didn't need to know the details regarding payment of tuition fees. Schools should strive to provide a happy and supportive environment for children, the bench added.

Furthermore, the bench noted that 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.

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 he received 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.