Back
No Degree Without Clean Funds: Upholds College’s Right to Withhold Certificates
In a landmark judgment that balances individual educational rights against the financial integrity of private institutions, the has ruled that a college is not obligated to release a student's degree certificate if the course fees were seized by the as .
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed the plea of MBBS graduate Puja Kumari, who had sought a directive for the release of her completion certificates despite her college fees being appropriated by the NIA during a terror-funding probe.
The Backdrop: A Degree Caught in a Legal Quagmire Puja Kumari, a medical graduate who completed her MBBS and internship from the , found herself in the middle of a national security investigation. The NIA’s inquiry into the —a —revealed that the Rs 1,13,70,500 paid for her college tuition was sourced from illegal, extorted funds.
Once the NIA seized the funds from the institution, the college effectively received no payment for her education. Consequently, the university refused to release her certificates, treating her account as "unpaid." The student had argued that certificates were not and could not be held as security, citing various judicial precedents against withholding academic documents.
Arguments: Individual Rights vs. Counsel for the appellant, , contended that the student had a spotless academic record and no direct links to the terror funding, arguing that she should not be penalized for investigations targeting her family members. He emphasized that under established law, such as , educational certificates cannot be used as leverage for financial recovery.
Conversely, the college's Senior Counsel, , argued that the law regarding certificates presupposes a valid fee payment. He asserted that the college cannot be forced to bear the massive financial loss resulting from the seizure of funds, emphasizing that the institution has fulfilled its duty by educating the student and now requires legal, untainted payments to consider the student’s financial obligations met.
Key Observations The Court underscored that while the student’s academic achievements are separate from the criminal case, she cannot claim an to profit from a crime. Notable excerpts from the judgment include:
-
"While it may be true that the appellant is not directly arrayed as an accused in her individual capacity, she cannot assert an
to benefit from the fruits of a crime."
-
"The moment the NIA seized and appropriated the fee amount from the college, the appellant's account with the institution legally defaulted to an unpaid status."
-
"Forcing the institution to release the certificates when it has effectively received zero clean currency for her education would be a gross
."
-
"If the appellant maintains her absolute innocence and claims the funds were legitimate, her remedy lies in approaching the competent
for the release of the seized funds from the NIA."
Legal Precedents and Final Verdict While the Court reaffirmed the principle that educational certificates are not " " and should generally not be withheld, it carved out a clear exception for cases involving illegal funding. The Bench noted that the precedents cited by the appellant (such as ) did not contemplate situations involving the seizure of college fees under the .
The Court dismissed the , affirming the Single Judge’s order. The practical implication is clear: the law protects the of educational institutions when funds are proven to be criminal proceeds. The student remains free to seek the release of the seized funds through the appropriate or pay her fees anew to secure her degree. This ruling sets an important precedent for institutions navigating the intersection of private contracts and anti-terror legislation.
