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

2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9734

SANJAY KUMAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ
ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1760 OF 2023 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 4006 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Dama Seshadri Naidu
For the Respondents: Mr.P.V.Yogeshwaran

The Supreme Court affirmed the regulatory authority of the AFRC in determining fees of minority educational institutions under the Madhya Pradesh Act, ensuring no profiteering while respecting their autonomy.

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 - Regulation of fees charged by minority educational institutions - The Supreme Court held that the Act of 2007 empowers the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) to regulate fees proposed by minority institutions, ensuring no profiteering or capitation fees occur. (Paras 6, 15)

(B) Right to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions - The parameters under which fees can be regulated were further clarified in previous landmark judgments, establishing that while educational institutions can propose their fees, they are subject to oversight to prevent exploitation. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, managing minority institutions, contested the requirement to fix fees through AFRC under the Act of 2007, leading to appeals being dismissed by the appellate authority and the High Court, which upheld that regulations apply equally to minority and non-minority institutions.

Findings of Court:
The AFRC's role is to regulate proposed fees by ensuring they do not amount to profiteering, confirming that the Act does not violate minority institutions' rights.

Issues: Whether the Act's fee regulations infringe on the rights of minority educational institutions to determine their fees independently.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that regulation by AFRC is permissible, ensuring no institution profits exorbitantly while allowing them to propose fees based on specific factors. (Paras 14, 16)

Result: Appeal disposed of with clarity on the regulatory powers of AFRC.

Table of Content
1. question of fee regulation for minority institutions. (Para 2 , 4)
2. previous rulings affirming act's validity. (Para 7)
3. legitimacy of fee proposals and afrc's regulatory role. (Para 11 , 13)
4. final interpretation of afrc's powers and limitations. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether a minority educational institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh is required to get the fees charged by it fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, 'the Act of 2007')? Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2023.03.17 15:28:10 IST Reason:

    Signature Not Verified 3. This issue is no longer res integra as the contours and import of the Act of 2007, including the question aforestated, were dealt with and decided by a Constitution Bench in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2016) 7 SCC 353]. However, failure of the parties in properly understanding the ratio decidendi of the above decision led to the present litigation.

4. Icon Education Society, the appellant herein, maintains and manages two unaided educational institutions at Indore, viz., Indore Institute of Law and Indore Nursing College. Both these institutions qualify as ‘minority educational institutions’ under Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. While so, by letter dated 08.07.2019, the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for short, ‘the AFRC’), constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 2007, called upon the Indore Institute of Law to submit its proposal for regulation of the fees pertaining to law courses offered by it. This was followed up by a reminder on 24.07.2019, which was addressed to all private law colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant society addressed reply dated 31.07.2019, stating that the AFRC was not empowered to regulate the fees charged by minority educational institutions and requesting that the notices issued may be withdrawn or cancelled. The AFRC responded, vide letter dated 14.11.2019, stating that a decision had been taken in the meeting held on 08.11.2019 that the fees of minority institutions should be fixed by the AFRC. The appellant society was accordingly informed that its request for relaxation from getting the fees fixed by the AFRC was rejected.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant society preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 2007 before the designated authority. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, by order dated 10.01.2020, holding that the procedure of regulating/fixing of fee was common to both minority and non- minority institutions. The review/recall petition preferred by the appellant society was dismissed with costs by the appellate authority on 06.03.2020. 6. Thereupon, the appellant society filed WP No. 9690 of 2020 before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Its prayer therein was to declare Sections 4 and 9 of the Act of 2007 ultra vires as these provisions did not distinguish between minority educational institutions and other educational institutions and, in consequence, did not exempt minority educational institutions from fee-fixation. A further direction was sought to exempt the appellant society, being a minority educational institution, from the application of Section 9 of the Act of 2007, thereby permitting it to fix its own fees.

7. By order dated 19.11.2020, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench noted that the validity of the Act of 2007 had already been upheld in Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra). The High Court then relied upon Sk. Md. Rafique Vs. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Mad

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top