There were two sets of petitions. In the first set of Petitions, private unaided schools had assailed the validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 (in short, “Act of 2016”) and in the second set of Petitions, Orders directing deferment of collection of school fees including reduction of fees limited to 70% of Tuition Fees by CBSE Schools and 60% from Rajasthan Board Schools, in view of reduction of syllabus by the respective Boards due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. FIRST SET OF PETITIONS Grounds of Challenge to the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 1. Arbitrarily restricting the autonomy of the School to determine fee is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 2. The Constitution of School Level Fee Committee (SLFC) under the Act of 2016 wherein the School Management has only one representative against five parents, three teachers and one principal, restricts the autonomy of the School Management to regulate fees. Such parents could also be of those wards who are availing free education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, “RTE Act”) and thereby have no stakes at all in relation to the School Fees. 3. The Division Fee Regulatory Committee (DFRC) and the Revision Committee constituted under the Act of 2016 have powers to issue summons, search, seizure and penalties thereby considering School Fees to be res extra commercium (thing that is outside purview of commerce) and endlessly embroiling the School in the process of appeal, revision and judicial proceeding putting their financial future in jeopardy. 4. The process of determining fees is a dynamic exercise and the factors enumerated under the Act of 2016 are vague, subjective and irrelevant. In TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481, it was observed that it is in the interests of the general public that autonomy and non-regulation of the school administration will ensure that more good quality schools will get established. 5. It was also urged that the field of regulation of fees of schools is already occupied by the RTE Act and the State Legislature cannot enact a law on the same subject. Grounds taken by the State in relation to the Act of 2016 1. The State/Respondent cited various cases such as Modern Dental College and Research   Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353, wherein identical provisions enacted by various states in relation to fixation of fee by external committees were upheld. 2. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and the State has the power to regulate such rights. Observations by the Court in relation to the Act of 2016 1. It is not open to argue that the Government cannot provide for external regulatory mechanism for determination of school fees. The real question is whether the Act of 2016 stands the test of reasonableness and rationality and balances the rights of the School under Article 19 (1) (g). 2. The Court also considered the ground that the RTE Act already occupies the field and observed that the purpose of the RTE Act is completely different since it talks about free and compulsory education to the children of the age of 6-14 years and otherwise has no connection with the fee structure that is adopted by the Schools. 3. The Court considered the Act of 2016 in great depth and upheld the validity of the Act of 2016; however, it read down the following provisions: - a. Section 4 that talks about lottery system was read down wherein even the parents of the wards admitted under the RTE Act could become a part of the SLFC. The Court held that the parents who are part of the SLFC must be willing, well-informed and capable of having a meaningful discourse on the proposal of fee structure. Such eligibility ought to be specified in the Act. b. Section 7 was also read down to the extent that the constitution of DFRC under it must ensure that only those parents w