Validity of law imposing restrictions on alienation of private school properties challenged before Madras High Court

Published 2 July 2026 · india

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) admitted a writ petition filed by All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEA) challenging the constitutional

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) admitted a writ petition filed by All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEA) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2019 which imposes several restrictions on alienating the properties belonging to private schools. First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan granted six weeks’ time for the State government to file its counter affidavit. The petitioner association had pointed out that it challenged the legal provision on multiple grounds including legislative incompetence, jurisdictional overreach and usurpation of powers of civil courts. The association pointed out that Section 30(1) of the Act states that no educational agency shall, except with the prior permission in writing of the competent authority (school education department officials), transfer the property of a private school by way of sale, exchange, mortgage, charge, pledge, lease, gift or in any other manner whatsoever.

Section 30(2) requires the competent authority, on receipt of an application for such transfer, to grant permission if he/she was satisfied that such transfer was for the furtherance of the object of the private school and that the proceeds resulting from such transfer were to be wholly utilised in furtherance of the said object. A proviso to the section insists on hearing the applicant before taking the 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) makes it clear that any transaction carried out by an educational agency, without the prior permission of the competent authority, would be considered null and void.

Assailing the provisions, the AIPEA said, it was a colourable legislation which bore the label of being educational in purpose but entirely interferes with the right to hold property, enter into contracts and administer trusts. It contended that it was beyond the legislative competence of the State to impose restrictions with respect to transactions involving immovable properties. The association also argued that the school education department could not be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over the property affairs of educational agencies. It also said that it was only for the civil courts and not administrative authorities to determine whether a property transaction by an educational agency was in furtherance of its objectives or not.