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

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANUROOP SINGHI, J.
Eshita Gupta D/o Navneet Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Jaipur National University and Another – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7084 of 2024
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Punit Singhvi, Shradha Mehta, Ayush Singh, Ishan Verma
For the Respondents: Kamalakar Sharma, Yogesh Kalla, Rishabh Khandelwal, Angad Mirdha

Educational institutions cannot retain students' original documents to compel fee payment, as such action lacks legal authority.

Headnote:(A) Indian Judiciary - Legal Right to Document Retrieval - It was affirmed that educational institutions lack the authority to withhold original documents from students for any reason regarding unpaid fees. The court emphasized the necessity to release documents to prevent hindrance in the student's academic progress. (Paras 17-20)

(B) Education Law - Principle of Document Ownership - The retention of a student's original documents without lawful authority is not sustainable, as certificates are deemed the individual's property. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after completing two years in an MBBS course, sought the return of her original documents from the university, which were essential for her admission to another university. Her initial request was denied by the university.

Findings of Court:
The court found no legal basis for the university's refusal to return the original documents, which were necessary for the petitioner's next admission.

Issues: The core issues included whether the university had the right to retain original documents due to alleged unpaid fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an institution's retention of original documents as a means of enforcing fee payment is not legally justified and contradicts the rights of students over their own certificates.

Result: The university was ordered to return the original documents within a specified timeframe.

Table of Content
1. right to original documents after withdrawal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on need for document release (Para 4 , 5)
3. judicial affirmation on document retention law (Para 6 , 7)
4. court orders document release to petitioner (Para 8)
5. institution's arguments on fee collection rights (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. final analysis of court regarding student's rights (Para 16)
7. no authority to withhold documents for fees (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. court's directive for document return (Para 20)

ORDER :

1. The present matter comes upon an application No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner-student with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Misc. Application and pass appropriate orders in view of subsequent developments, directing Respondent University to release the original documents of the applicant/petitioner, which were submitted at the time of taking admission with the Respondent University.

Any other other which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the applicant/petitioner.”

2. Perusal of the prayer reveals that it is the release of the original documents of the applicant-petitioner submitted by her to the respondent-university at the time of taking admission in MBBS Course in the year 2022, is what has been prayed for. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has undergone the course for Ist and IInd year in the year 2022-23, 2023-24 and the fee for the years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 has been paid.

3. The petitioner on account of her health reasons withdrew herself from the college and suo moto stopped attending the classes. Thereafter, she sought withdrawal of her admission from the respondent-university but the same was refused. It is also placed on record that the petitioner has now gotten herself admitted with one, Pearl University, Delhi (West), for undergoing Bachelor of Design in Communication Design course from the year 2025 onwards and now as the examinations are about to commence from 05.12.2025, the said university is mandatorily requiring the petitioner to submit her original documents, which as of now are lying with the respondent-University i.e., Jaipur National University.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite asking for all of her documents which are still lying with the University, they have refused to provide the same on account of which her admission in Pearl University would be jeopardized as she will not be permitted to appear in the examinations commencing from 05.12.2025.

5. Learned counsel submits that the documents, viz. Transfer Certificate dated 04.08.2021 and Migration Certificate dated 25.10.2021, photocopies of which have been filed before the Court today along with an Additional Affidavit, are the documents which have to be filed by her, in absence of which she will not be permitted to appear in the examination by Pearl University. Counsel submits that the respondent-University has no authority to withhold her documents.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhmanpreet Singh Cheema Vs. Union of India , CWP No. 8900/2025 dated 12.11.2025, relevant paras of which read as under:-

“9. This Court in order to first examine the grievance of the petitioners, posed a specific query to learned counsel for respondent no.5- college, as to under which authority or rule, it has power to retain the original documents of the petitioners and other medical students. Though the college believes that the petitioners are liable to pay the outstanding dues, no specific provision or authority has been shown to justify such retention.

10. The only reason explained to this Court is that Baba Farid University granted conditional permission to the petitioners, requiring them to clear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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