Back
MBBS Graduate Moves After College Withholds Degree Over NIA-Seized Fees
The has stepped into a highly unusual dispute where an MBBS graduate is being denied her degree and completion certificates because the fees she paid were seized by the during a UAPA investigation. The student, who completed her medical course and internship in 2023, now faces the prospect of paying the entire fee a second time to obtain her degree, despite having no involvement in the criminal case that led to the seizure. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Friday issued notice to the Centre and Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, seeking their responses to the plea filed by the graduate, Pooja Kumari.
The case raises fundamental questions about the rights of students caught in the crossfire of anti-terror investigations, the limits of institutional autonomy, and whether a college can demand re-payment of fees that were lawfully paid but later attached by a statutory agency.
A Student's Ordeal: Fees Paid, Then Seized
Pooja Kumari was admitted to the MBBS programme at Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, a deemed university in Tamil Nadu, in 2017. Over the course of her five-year degree and the mandatory one-year compulsory internship, she paid approximately Rs 1.13 crore in tuition and other fees through regular banking channels. She completed all academic requirements and her internship in 2023, becoming eligible for the award of her MBBS degree, provisional certificate, and course completion certificate.
However, in a twist that no student could have anticipated, the NIA, during an investigation under the against certain relatives of Kumari, seized the fees she had paid. The agency's action was based on the suspicion that the funds might be linked to her relatives' alleged activities. Kumari herself was never named as an accused or even summoned as a witness in the investigation. She had no connection to the alleged offences.
Despite this, the college informed her that since the fees it had received were now in the custody of the NIA, it would not release her degree, provisional certificate, or course completion certificate unless she paid the entire amount again. The college argued that it had not actually received the benefit of the fees, as the money was seized from its accounts, and therefore it was entitled to fresh payment before issuing the academic documents.
The Legal Battle: From to
Kumari challenged the college's decision before the . In , a single judge dismissed her writ petition, holding that the college's demand was not unreasonable because the fees had been seized and the institution had not been able to use the funds. The judge observed that the student could seek recourse against the NIA for recovery of the seized amount, but the college could not be forced to release the degree without receiving the fees.
Undeterred, Kumari appealed to a division bench of the , which in (the news source states , but likely a typo for 2025 or ? We'll retain as per source) also rejected her plea. The division bench concurred with the single judge, noting that the college's position was contractual—it had not been paid for the services rendered (the degree) because the money was seized. The bench added that the student's remedy lay against the NIA, not the college.
Aggrieved by the , Kumari moved the under . Her counsel argued that she was a student who had paid the fees in full and on time through legitimate banking channels. She had no involvement in the UAPA case, and it was unjust to make her bear the consequences of proceedings against her relatives. The college, having received the fees at the time of payment, could not later insist on re-payment simply because a third party—the NIA—had taken possession of those funds. The seizure, it was argued, was a matter between the college and the investigating agency, and the student should not be held hostage to that dispute.
Intervenes: Notice Issued
The bench, after hearing preliminary arguments, issued notice to the Union of India (through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the NIA) and to Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, returnable in four weeks. The court did not pass any , but the issuance of notice itself signals that the apex court finds the matter deserving of a closer examination.
The key legal issue before the is whether an educational institution can withhold a student's degree and certificates when the fees have been paid but later seized by an investigating agency in a case to which the student is not a party. The student's counsel is likely to argue that the college's demand amounts to and violates the student's right to education and livelihood under . Without the degree, the student cannot practice medicine or pursue higher studies.
On the other hand, the college may contend that it is not obligated to confer a degree without receiving consideration, and that the seizure by the NIA effectively meant it never received the fees. The college may also point to its own financial loss and the difficulty of recovering the seized amount from the NIA.
Analysis: Balancing National Security and Individual Rights
This case is a stark illustration of how anti-terror investigations can inadvertently affect innocent third parties. The UAPA grants the NIA wide powers to attach and seize properties believed to be proceeds of terrorism. However, the statute also provides for mechanisms to release such properties to purchasers or recipients. The student's fees, paid for a legitimate educational service, could arguably fall within the category of assets that should be released to the institution, thereby enabling the release of the degree.
The will have to interpret the interplay between the UAPA's seizure provisions and the contractual and constitutional rights of a student. If the court rules in favour of the student, it could set a precedent that protects innocent parties from the collateral damage of criminal investigations. Conversely, if the court upholds the college's demand, it may open the door for similar demands in other cases where fees or payments are seized, creating uncertainty for students and consumers.
Another dimension is the role of educational institutions. While they have a legitimate interest in receiving their dues, they also have a duty to act fairly and not to exploit students who are not at fault. The college could have sought release of the seized funds from the NIA or initiated proceedings for recovery, rather than passing the burden onto the student.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal professionals, this case highlights the importance of advising clients on the potential consequences of asset seizures under the UAPA and other stringent laws. It also underscores the need for educational institutions to have clear policies in place for handling such contingencies. The 's eventual ruling will likely be closely watched by universities, colleges, and students across the country.
Moreover, the case may influence how courts approach the question of "" when a third party's criminal act disrupts a lawful transaction. The principle that no person should be made to suffer for the wrongs of another is a cornerstone of justice, and the apex court may reinforce that principle in this context.
Conclusion
The 's decision to issue notice in this case is a crucial first step towards resolving a deeply troubling situation for the student. While no interim relief has been granted yet, the fact that the court has sought responses from the Centre and the college indicates that it is not inclined to dismiss the matter summarily. For Pooja Kumari, the wait continues, but the highest court in the land has acknowledged her grievance. The legal community will be watching as the case unfolds, for it touches upon issues of fairness, national security, and the fundamental right to education.
