Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Najiya Neermunda & Anr. Etc. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust & Ors. Etc. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 606-616 of 2021 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 617-634 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 636 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 637 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 666 of 2021 Civil Appeal No. 679 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Education – Admission to MBBS Course – Fee Fixation – Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 – Sections 8, 11 and 17 – Unaided professional institutions have autonomy to decide on fee to be charged, subject to fee not resulting in profiteering or collection of capitation fee – Regulation of fee is within domain of Committee for fixation of fee which shall ensure that fee is non-exploitative and reasonable – Right conferred on institutions to fix fee for professional courses is subject to regulation – Delay that is caused in finalizing fee in medical colleges is beneficial neither to institutions nor students – Committee directed to expeditiously reconsider proposals of private self-financing colleges for fee fixation from 2017-18 onwards – Fee for earlier years also needs to be finalized in case it has not been done in respect of any college – It can direct managements to furnish any information that is required for the purpose of arriving at a decision that fee proposed by managements is neither excessive nor exploitative in nature – Reasonable opportunity should be given to managements of private self-financing colleges in respect of their proposals for fee fixation – Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Controversy in these Appeals pertains to fee fixation by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges in State of Kerala.
Findings of Court:
High Court in the impugned judgment held that it was incumbent on the Committee to reconsider proposals for fee fixation afresh, as the matter was remanded by the High Court after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to stakeholders. The fee fixation of the Committee is subject to an appeal as per provisions of the 2017 Act. Except laying down principles of fee fixation, the High Court did not examine the merits of any case while remanding the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law by its judgment dated 28.02.2019. The Committee shall re-examine proposals of the Managements of Medical Colleges for the fixation of fee 2017-18 onwards.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The controversy in these Appeals pertains to fee fixation by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges in the State of Kerala.
2. Pursuant to the judgement of this Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 537 the State of Kerala enacted Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006. The Rules framed under the said Act came into force w.e.f. 2006. The said Act was replaced by Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2017 Act"). Certain provisions of the 2017 Act were challenged by way of Writ Petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala. The fixation of admission fee for all the medical colleges in the State of Kerala provisionally at Rs. 5 Lakh by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee was also subject matter of challenge in the said Writ Petitions. Section 8 of the 2017 Act delineates the powers and functions of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") constituted under Section 3 of the 2017 Act. Section 8(1)(a) provides that the Committee can direct a private aided or unaided medical institution to furnish the required information along with necessary material for enabling the Committee to determine the fee that may be charged by the institution in respect of each medical course. Section 11 of the 2017 Act mentions the factors that are to be taken into account by the Committee for determination of the fee to be charged by a private aided or unaided medical institution. The challenge to Sections 8(1)(a) and Section 11 of the 2017 Act was rejected by the High Court in its judgment dated 02.11.2017. However, the High Court held that fixation of fee provisionally was ultra vires the 2017 Act. After examining the law laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 P.A. Inamdar (supra) and Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 with respect to fixation of fee for professional courses in unaided medical colleges, the High Court of Kerala held that the institutions shall propose the fee structure and the scrutiny by the Committee shall only be for the purpose of ensuring that such fee is not exploitative and that the institutions are not indulging in profiteering or collecting capitation fee. According to the High Court, the Committee can formulate a policy of directing the colleges to submit audited accounts of previous years for the purpose of ascertaining that there is no profiteering by the institutions in fixing the fee. The High Court made it clear that the Committee cannot go into the desirability or appropriateness of the expenses incurred by the institution as per its own notions and standards. While disposing of the Writ Petitions, the High Court fixed a time schedule for finalizing the fee to be paid by students as it would be detrimental to the interests of both students and the institutions to keep the finalization of fee pending for a long time.
3. Consequent upon the judgment dated 02.11.2017 of the High Court, the Committee fixed fee for the MBBS course for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 for private medical colleges. Dissatisfied with the fee fixed by the Committee, the managements of private self-financing medical colleges again approached the High Court by filing Writ Petitions which were heard and disposed of by the High Court on 28.02.2019. The principal contentions of the managements before the High Court were that the Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction in fixing
Regulation of fee is within domain of Committee for fixation of fee which shall ensure that fee is non-exploitative and reasonable. Right conferred on institutions to fix fee for professional courses....
The determination of fees for private medical colleges must be conducted by the Fee Regulatory Committee as per the Act of 2006, and the State Government cannot unilaterally extend previous fee struc....
Point of law: The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere ....
Once the fee is determined under Section 10(3) of the Act of 2007, the same is to remain intact for the period of three years and the students who have taken admission on the basis of such fees deter....
The court ruled that the Fee Committee lacks authority to collect fees for a Corpus Fund without legislative backing, affirming that all prescribed tuition fees must be paid by students.
The court reaffirmed that exclusion of necessary parties in fee fixation processes violates natural justice, and that fee structures must adhere to established guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
