Srinagar, Jul 1: The Fee Fixation and Regulation Committee (FFRC) has tightened its noose against the private schools for charging admission fees from the parents in violation of the rules set by the competent authorities.

The move comes barely after three weeks when FFRC issued strict instructions to the private schools to refrain from collecting admission fees from the parents “illegally” without a receipt.

On July 1, 2025, a case came to the fore wherein a complaint was filed in the office of FFRC that a private school in south Kashmir’s Anantnag district has collected admission fees from the parents in violation of the rules.

In the wake of this, a notice has been issued to the management of Radiant Public School, Anantnag, by the Chairman FFRC Justice (Retd) Sunil Hali with the instructions to submit the details of all accounts of the school or trust along with the name of the banks duly attested by the branch head.

“You are also directed to submit the transactions conducted from the said accounts with effect from April 2024, to date, to find out that no amount has been transferred to private accounts except expenses incurred in running the school,” the communication reads.

The Chairman of FFRC has said that it came to the notice of the committee that some private schools were receiving admission fees in violation of the J&K School Education Act, 2002 (as Amended) and orders issued by the committee from time to time.

On June 11 of this year, FFRC issued a circular wherein parents and students, who were charged admission fees by any private school, were requested to come forward with their grievances, so that necessary action is taken against such erring schools following the law.

“It was assured that the identity of such parents and students shall be kept confidential,” it reads.

As per the fresh communication FFRC chairman said that a complaint has been received by the FFRC against Radiant Public School, and it has been alleged that the school has charged admission fees, without issuing any receipt to a student in violation of Section 20E(1) of the Act of 2002.

Chairman FFRC said that charging admission fees was against the rules framed under the SED Act 2002, and the orders issued by the Committee from time to time.

“Given the above, you are hereby directed to show cause as to why action in terms of the ibid Act, rules and orders issued by the Committee from time to time, be not taken against you,” reads the notice issued to the chairman and principal of the Radiant Public School, Anantnag.

“Your reply should reach this office within 15 days, failing which, it shall be construed that you have nothing to say in your defence,” it reads.

The principal has been directed to submit details of all accounts of the school or trust, along with the name of the bank, duly attested by the branch head.

“You are also directed to submit the transactions conducted from the said accounts with effect from April 1, 2024, to date, to find out that no amount has been transferred to private accounts except expenses incurred in running the school,” it reads.

The Chairman of FFRC has said that the Supreme Court has categorically stated that no amount should be transferred to the private account from the school or trust account.

“An affidavit duly attested by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class that no admission fee has been received from the students should be submitted to the office,” it reads.

The school has been asked to submit the list of the fresh admissions made during the years 2024 and 2025, while mentioning the name of the student, parentage, address, contact and email address as well.

FFRC Chairman has further issued a corrigendum to order number FFRC/adm/024/4162 issued on July 25, 2024, stating that only 50 percent of transport fees will be charged by schools during the vacation period.

As per the official document, FFRC chairman said that regarding the matter of charging of transport fee by private schools during the winter break (Kashmir Division) and summer break (Jammu  Division), it has been decided that the private schools will be charging only 50 percent of the transport fee provided the transport facility is owned and operated by the school itself.

“In cases where the transport facility is outsourced, hired from a third party, or operated under a contractual arrangement, no transport fee shall be charged during the break periods by such outsourced agencies and transporters. This directive shall be effective from the academic session 2024-25 in Kashmir division and 2025-26 in Jammu division onwards,” the official document reads.

It reads that all other terms and conditions of the original order shall remain unchanged.

“The Director School Education, Kashmir and Jammu, shall ensure strict adherence to this clarification while monitoring of implementation thereof,” the document reads.

Srinagar, Jul : Underscoring that they ceased to be citizens of India, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld the deportation of a married Pakistani couple who had been residing in Srinagar since 1988 on extended visas.

A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma dismissed a plea by Muhammad Khalil Qazi and Arifa Qazi, husband and wife, filed in 1990 wherein they had sought the court’s intervention to declare their deportation as “illegal and unconstitutional” and not to deport them from the territory of J&K.

The details of the case divulged that originally born in Srinagar, Khalil in 1945 and Arifa in 1962. Khalil moved to Pakistan during the 1948 conflict and eventually became a Pakistani citizen.

The wife held an Indian passport, but after marrying him in Rawalpindi in 1986, she too became a Pakistani citizen, according to the details.

In July 1988, the couple entered India along with their minor son using Pakistani passports and valid Indian visas.

The CID issued residential permits, and their visas were extended three times, with the last extension valid until November 1, 1988.

After their permits expired, they submitted a representation to the government requesting that their Indian citizenship be resumed or granted.

As their request was under consideration, the Home Department issued a deportation order on September 13, 1989.

It was this deportation order that the couple challenged before the High Court in their plea.

In response to the plea, the court in its decision has noted that by voluntarily acquiring Pakistani citizenship, the couple lost their Indian citizenship in keeping with Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

“Given Section 9(1), a citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country after commencement of the 1955 Act or between 26th January, 1950 and the date of commencement of the 1955 Act, upon such acquisition, such citizenship automatically ceases to be a citizen of India,” it said.

The court observed that Khalil Qazi ceased to be a citizen of India as he migrated to Pakistan and is a citizen of Pakistan, while Arifa Qazi has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after her marriage, and their son is a citizen of Pakistan by birth.

“Therefore, immediately upon acquiring the citizenship of Pakistan, they cease to be citizens of India,” the court said. “Thus, voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country by an Indian citizen results in the termination of his Indian citizenship.”

The court said the petitioners have acted in their own volition and acquired the citizenship of a foreign country.

“Their passports and the residential permit issued in their favour are cogent, unequivocal evidence of the fact that the Petitioners are not citizens of India and, as such, orders to deport them were valid,” it said.

In response to the argument that a formal inquiry under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act should have been conducted to determine their citizenship status, the court said since the facts of the case were not in dispute, there was no need for such a formal procedure.

Dismissing their plea, the court observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the request of the petitioners for the grant of citizenship of India had been accepted.

“They are staying in India on the strength of Pakistani passports, the period of which has expired, and after expiry of the extension of their stay, they had to return to their country,” it said.