Validity of law imposing restrictions on alienation of property of private schools challenged in Madras High Court

First Division Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan gave the state government six weeks to file its counter-affidavit. File

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) allowed a plea filed by the All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEA) challenging the constitutionality of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2019, which imposes several restrictions on alienation of property belonging to private schools.

First Division Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan gave the state government six weeks to file its counter-affidavit. The petitioner association pointed out that it is challenging the statutory provision on several grounds, including legislative incompetence, jurisdictional overreach and usurpation of the powers of civil courts.

The association pointed out that § 30, paragraph 1 of the law stipulates that no educational agency may, with the exception of the prior written consent of the competent authority (official of the Department of Education), transfer the property of a private school by sale, exchange, mortgage, lien, lease, gift or in any other way.

Section 30(2) requires the competent authority, upon receipt of an application for such transfer, to grant permission if it is satisfied that such transfer serves to support the object of the private school and that the proceeds of such transfer are to be used entirely for the support of the said object. The section’s reservation insists on hearing the applicant before making a decision.

Further, Section 30(3) mandates that the Competent Authority must pass an order either granting permission or refusing to grant permission within 60 days from the date of application and Section 30(4) clearly states that any transaction carried out by an educational agency without the prior permission of the Competent Authority would be considered null and void.

AIPEA said that in terms of the provision, it was colorful legislation that carried the label of an educational purpose but completely interfered with the right to own property, enter into contracts and administer trusts. It argued that it was beyond the state’s legislative power to impose restrictions in relation to real estate transactions.

The association also argued that the school education department cannot be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over the property affairs of educational agencies. It also stated that it is only up to the civil courts, and not administrative bodies, to determine whether or not an educational agency’s property transaction fulfills its objectives.

Complaining about the absence of a statutory appeal provision under the Act, the petitioner association urged the court to declare Section 30 ultra vires the Constitution.

Published – 02 Jul 2026 08:32 IST