Supreme Court Grants Relief to Medical Students Over Disputed Fee Hike in Uttarakhand

The case of Sahil Bhargava & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. revolves around a dispute concerning the fee structure of undergraduate medical courses at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences in Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 9, 2024, provided interim relief to the students by directing that they be allowed to retrieve their original documents upon partial payment, allowing them to pursue postgraduate studies and medical practice while the final decision on the fee hike is pending.

The ruling highlights critical issues in the regulation of fees for private medical institutions and the rights of students when abrupt fee revisions occur.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, students admitted in 2018 to the undergraduate MBBS program at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, completed their courses in 2023. They contested an unexpected increase in tuition fees imposed retroactively by the college and upheld by the Uttarakhand Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. The original fees were:

Rs. 4 lakhs per annum for State quota students
Rs. 5 lakhs per annum for All India quota students

However, in March 2019, the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee revised the fees for the academic years 2019-2022, raising them to:

Rs. 9.78 lakhs per annum for State quota students
Rs. 13.22 lakhs per annum for All India quota students

The revised fees were later extended to cover the 2018-19 academic year, placing a significant financial burden on students who had completed their studies.

Key Issues Raised

Was it lawful for the revised fee structure to be applied retroactively to students who had already completed their courses?
Did the students have to pay the increased fees to receive their original documents and final degree certificates?
Would students be prevented from pursuing higher education or medical practice if they could not afford the increased fees?

Legal Proceedings

Petitioners’ (Students’) Arguments

The students, represented by Senior Counsel Gaurav Aggarwal, contended:

They had taken admission based on the original fee structure of Rs. 4-5 lakhs per annum.
The retroactive application of revised fees was unfair and arbitrary.
Most students had already paid substantial amounts—Rs. 34 lakhs (All India quota) and Rs. 28 lakhs (State quota)—towards fees and were being unfairly asked to pay more.
The refusal to return their original documents without payment of additional fees was unlawful and prevented them from pursuing postgraduate studies and internships.

Respondents’ (Uttarakhand Government and College) Arguments

The college and state authorities, represented by Senior Counsel Gopal Sankarnarayanan, countered:

The fee increase was legally approved by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee.
All students were informed that the initial fees were subject to revision based on pending litigation.
Since other students had paid the increased fees, the petitioners should not receive an exemption.

High Court’s Decision

The students had initially approached the Uttarakhand High Court, which:

Rejected their request to stay the fee hike.
Directed them to pay in three installments.
Later modified the order, allowing payments in nine installments.
Ordered the release of provisional certificates only after the first installment.
Admitted their petitions but scheduled the next hearing for March 2025, leaving them in uncertainty.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court found that:

The High Court had failed to provide a timely resolution, leaving students in an educational limbo.
The college had already received substantial payments from the students.
The inability to access original documents was unjust and prevented students from pursuing their careers.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The students must be allowed to retrieve their original documents upon payment of an additional Rs. 7.5 lakhs each.
They must submit an undertaking agreeing to pay any balance if required after the final High Court decision.
The High Court’s interim order was modified to reflect this arrangement.
This ruling did not determine the final validity of the fee hike, which remained under judicial review.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for private medical education:

Regulation of Private College Fees: The case highlights the need for clear policies on fee determination and the rights of students.
Protection Against Arbitrary Fee Hikes: The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that students are not left stranded due to retroactive fee increases.
Right to Educational Continuity: The decision reinforces the principle that educational institutions cannot withhold documents as leverage for additional payments.
Judicial Oversight in Fee Disputes: The ruling sets a precedent for courts to intervene in fee-related disputes where students’ futures are at stake.

This case serves as a reminder that while private colleges have the right to set fees, students also have a right to fair treatment and transparency. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures that students can continue their medical careers without undue financial burden while awaiting the final judgment.

Petitioner Name: Sahil Bhargava & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand, India.
Judgment Date: 09-09-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sahil-bhargava-&-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-09-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by Manoj Misra
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category