SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 536

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Soumya Ranjan Panda and Others – Appellants
Versus
Subhalaxmi Dash and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7861-7862 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35075-35076 of 2015]
Decided On : 14-05-2026

Judicial relocation of students from a deficient medical college requires the defaulting institution to bear primary fee liability through secured funds, with equitable adjustments preventing student windfall from interim subsidized rates.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 142 - Extraordinary powers for interim directions - Relocation of students from deficient medical college - Determination of fee liability and equitable apportionment of financial burden.

(B) Unjust enrichment - No party to derive benefit from own wrong - Defaulting institution liable for consequences of deficiencies leading to non-renewal of recognition - Students not entitled to permanent windfall from subsidized interim fees.

(C) Equitable adjustment - Disbursement of court deposits and bank guarantees to compensate transferee institutions - Shortfall recovery through regulatory mechanism without prejudicing rights in other proceedings. (Paras 25, 36, 42, 48, 52)

Facts of the case:
Students were admitted to a private medical college for two academic sessions. Inspections revealed fundamental deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty and regulatory compliance leading to denial of renewal of recognition. Court orders facilitated relocation to recognized private medical colleges ensuring academic continuity. Transferee colleges received only government-rate fees for limited period while imparting education and paying stipends. Dispute centered on outstanding fees and apportionment of liability.

Findings of Court:
Primary financial liability rests on defaulting institution. Sums deposited in court along with accrued interest and bank guarantees furnished to regulatory authority directed to be released equally to transferee colleges. Students permitted to approach regulatory authority for recovery of any remaining shortfall applying original fee rates. Compliance with directions entitles students to course completion documents.

Issues: Main issues framed were whether relocated students are liable to pay government rates or private rates, manner of apportioning any differential liability, and whether entire burden should be placed on defaulting institution or shared with students or state authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary judicial intervention to protect academic interests does not permit students to retain subsidized fee benefits permanently. Transferee colleges are entitled to reimbursement at rates applicable to original institution. Liability for deficiencies must be borne primarily by defaulting party through utilization of secured funds, balancing equities while avoiding unjust enrichment on either side.

Result: Interlocutory applications for directions disposed of with specific orders for disbursement. Other pending applications and appeals closed and consigned to record.

Table of Content
1. court grants leave and allows impleadment (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. scope focused on fee liability resolution (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. background of deficiencies and student relocation (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. parties argue on fee burden apportionment (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. no benefit from own wrong principle applied (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43)
6. disbursal of deposits to transferee colleges (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
7. students liable for outstanding srmch-rate fees (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53)
8. appeals closed with compliance directions (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave Granted.

3. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed.

Scope of the Present Controversy:

4. These appeals, though arising out of special leave petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2015, and 9th December, 2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa1 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] have, over the course of time, assumed a distinct and focused contour. What commenced as a challenge to the directions issued by the High Court concerning the relocation of students from Sardar Rajas Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Jaring, Kalahandi, Odisha2 [For short “SRMCH”] was subsequently shaped by a series of interim orders passed by this Court regulating the process of relocation and safeguarding the academic interests of the students. By order dated 8th January, 2016, this Court expressed reservations with the approach adopted by the High Court in directing relocation based strictly on quota distinctions. Thereafter, another order dated 12th January, 2016 was passed permitting the continuation of students in recognised private institutions and enabled the State authorities to carry out relocation in a manner consistent with maintaining academic continuity. Pursuant to these directions, the relocation process was undertaken through a State-supervised counselling mechanism, ensuring that the students were accommodated in recognised private medical colleges (transferee colleges) thereby preventing loss of an academic year.

5. During the course of these proceedings, the transferee private medical colleges, namely, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar3 [Hereinafter referred to as the “transferee colleges”] have filed interlocutory applications being I.A. Nos. 73763 of 2019, 69514 of 2019 and 151684 of 2022, seeking issuance of appropriate directions/clarifications, inter alia, for payment/reimbursement of fees for the education imparted by them to the transferred students pursuant to the orders of this Court.

6. The present controversy is no longer centred around the validity of the impugned orders passed by the High Court but is focused on a fair resolution of the financial liabilities arising out of an extraordinary situation, where the academic trajectory of the students was preserved through judicial intervention, but the resultant financial burden remains to be equitably apportioned. In view of the subsequent developments and the directions issued by this Court, the lis now stands crystallised around the adjudication of the claims raised in the said interlocutory applications.

Background:

7. The brief background facts are that two batches of students for the MBBS course were admitted in a college named SRMCH, which is under the control and management of the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust4 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “Selvam Trust”] (respondent No. 76). The admissions pertain to the academic sessions 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. After the students had undergone a few academic sessions, numerous deficiencies in infrastructure, facilities, and regulatory compliances were noticed in the college by the Medical Council of India5 [Hereinafter referred to as the “MCI/NMC”]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top