Supreme Court of India
Sahil Bhargava vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Bench: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
2024 INSC 699 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19953 of 2024 Sahil Bhargava & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Respondents ORDER
1 The dispute in the present case relates to the fixation of the fee for the undergraduate
medical degree course offered by a college in the State of Uttarakhand. The
petitioners are students who were granted admission in 2018 to the undergraduate
medical degree course administered by the third respondent – Shri Guru Ram Rai
Institute of Medical and Health Sciences College. The students completed the course
in 2023. The second respondent is the Shri Guru Ram Rai University, a university
governed by an Act of the state legislature, 1 of which the third respondent is a
constituent college.
2 The state legislature enacted the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act in 2006. The
Signature Not Verified
Act applies to “unaided private professional educational institutions in the state which
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2024.09.18
14:15:53 IST
Reason:
1 Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act 2016, Uttarakhand Act No. 03 of 2017.
are affiliated to state-funded universities, councils, boards or other bodies established
under law, excluding minority institutions”. 2 The Act establishes an ‘Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee’, which inter alia determines the fees for admission to
professional courses of private institutions. 3 The Act also provides for the constitution
of an appellate authority to hear appeals against the orders of the Admission and
Fee Regulatory Committee. 4
3 On 4 April 2018, a nodal agency appointed by the State Government prescribed the
fee structure for the undergraduate medical courses of seven medical colleges,
including the third respondent. The fee structure as posted by the nodal agency on
their website (Annexure P-2) prescribed a fee of rupees four lakhs for State quota seats
and rupees five lakhs for the All India quota seats.
4 These fees and allied issues were the subject matter of writ petitions filed by the
second and third respondents before the Uttarakhand High Court. 5 The High Court,
by an interim order directed that admissions may be carried out and the fee
collected will be subject to the final outcome of the Writ petition.
5 In March 2019, the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee fixed the fees for the
academic years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 at Rs 13.22 lakhs per annum for
the All India quota and Rs 9.78 lakhs per annum for the State quota. The principal of
the third-respondent college preferred an appeal before the appellate authority
2 S.2, Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of
Fee) Act.
3 S.4, Ibid.
4 S.12, Ibid.
5 WPMS No. 933/2018; WPMS No. 1789/2018.
contending inter alia that the committee had erred by failing to fix the same fee for
the academic year 2018-19 for the undergraduate medical degree course. By an
Order dated 25 February 2023, the appellate authority affirmed the fee structure and
further directed that the same fees also be charged for the academic year 2018-
2019.
6 Letters were addressed by the college principal on 1 March 2023 asking all the
petitioners to pay outstanding fees of Rs. 36.99 lakhs for the All India quota students
and Rs 26.01 lakhs for the State quota students, in accordance with the revised fees
fixed by the committee and affirmed by the appellate authority.
7 The petitioners instituted Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the order of
the appellate authority, the letter dated 1 March 2023 and seeking a direction to the
respondents to issue undergraduate degrees to the petitioners without insistence on
any extra payment of tuition fee. 6 On 22 March 2023, the High Court rejected the
prayer to stay the order of the appellate authority and directed the petitioners to
deposit the fees in three equal installments. By a subsequent interim order dated 3
April 2023, the High Court directed the petitioners to deposit the amount in nine equal
installments instead of three installments. The order also records the statement of the
counsel, that on the payment of the first installment, the second and third respondents
would issue a provisional certificate for completion of the undergraduate medical
degree course to the petitioners, and they would be permitted to begin their
internships.
6 WPMS No. 755/2023.
8 The interim order of the High Court dated 3 April 2023 was challenged by the
petitioners before this Court. An order dated 28 April 2023 was passed in SLP (C) No
8760 of 2023 permitting the petitioners to continue the internship programme subject
to the deposit of two installments in terms of the interim order of the High Court. The
High Court was, however, requested to dispose of the pending Writ Petition as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of the order.
9 When the petition came up before the High Court on 26 August 2024, by the
impugned order, the High Court admitted the Writ Petitions. The High Court posted
the matter to be listed in March 2025 and further directed that subject to the deposit
of the fee, the original documents submitted by the petitioners to the university at the
time of admission, would be returned.
10 We have heard Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of ninety-
one petitioners before this Court in these proceedings and Mr Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third
respondents.
11 The original fee when the students took admission was Rs five lakhs per annum for the
All India quota seats and Rs four lakhs per annum, for the State quota seats. The fee
structure as posted by the nodal agency on their website (Annexure P-2) indicated
that this fee was subject to the final decision in the writ petitions which were pending
before the High Court.
12 The challenge to the fixation of fees is yet to attain finality since the students’ petitions
have been admitted by the High Court. In the meantime, it is common ground that
the petitioners have paid an amount of approximately Rs 34 lakhs per student for the
All-India quota seats and approximately Rs 28 lakhs per student for the State quota
seats.
13 Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, senior counsel states that the above figure, as indicated to the
court, is inclusive of:
(i) The security deposit of Rs three lakhs which has been adjusted; and
(ii) Two installments which were paid in pursuance of the order of this Court dated
28 April 2023.
14 At this stage, bearing in mind the above amounts which have been paid, we are of
the view that an equitable interim order which will apply during the pendency of
proceedings before the High Court should be passed so as to enable the students to
obtain the return of their original documents to pursue their postgraduate studies and
practice medicine. Absent such a direction, the students, despite having completed
their undergraduate medical studies and internship, would not be able to either
pursue medicine or secure admission for higher studies. The order of this Court dated
28 April 2023 sought to obviate such an imbroglio by issuing a direction for the deposit
of two installments of fees and requested the High Court to dispose of the petition.
Instead of doing so, the High Court simply admitted the petition and posted it to
March 2025. No early resolution of the dispute seems likely. The students cannot be
left in the lurch to an uncertain future.
15 We accordingly direct that conditional on the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs
7.50 lakhs each with the second and third respondents over and above the amounts
which have already been deposited, they shall be entitled to a return of their original
documents submitted at the time of obtaining admission. This is subject to the
condition that the petitioners shall file an undertaking to pay the balance amount in
the event that they are called upon to do so at the final disposal of the pending writ
petitions.
16 The interim order of the High Court shall stand modified in the above terms. It is
clarified that this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying
writ petitions pending before the High Court.
17 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.
18 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………….………………….…CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
…………………….………………….…..J.
[J B Pardiwala]
….………………….………………….…..J.
[Manoj Misra]
New Delhi;
September 09, 2024
GKA