A) Abstract / Headnote

This case addressed the fixation of fees for undergraduate medical courses in Uttarakhand. Students admitted in 2018 challenged a retrospective fee hike applicable from the same academic year. Initially, fees were ₹5 lakhs per annum for All India quota seats and ₹4 lakhs for State quota seats. However, the revised fee structure issued by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in 2019 increased these to ₹13.22 lakhs and ₹9.78 lakhs, respectively, applying retrospectively to 2018 admissions. Students petitioned for relief, seeking issuance of their degrees without additional fee payments. Interim orders of the High Court allowed provisional certificates and internships against partial payments, but the final resolution was deferred to March 2025. The Supreme Court intervened, directing equitable measures, including conditional deposit of ₹7.5 lakhs for return of original documents, enabling students to pursue postgraduate studies.

Keywords: Fee fixation, Undergraduate medical degree, Retrospective fee hike, Provisional certificate, Internships.

B) Case Details

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Sahil Bhargava & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19953 of 2024
• iii) Judgement Date: September 9, 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.
• vi) Author: Bench Decision
• vii) Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 408; 2024 INSC 699
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006.
  • Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act, 2016.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• x) Case is Related to: Constitutional law, Administrative law, and Education law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The case emerged from disputes regarding fee regulation for unaided professional institutions in Uttarakhand. The Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, governs fee fixation by establishing a Fee Regulatory Committee. Despite prior fee notifications, a revised fee structure in 2019 applied retrospectively, igniting legal challenges from students admitted in 2018.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Admission and Original Fees: Students admitted in 2018 to Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences paid ₹5 lakhs (All India quota) and ₹4 lakhs (State quota) per annum, subject to writ outcomes pending in the High Court.

2. Revised Fee Notification: In 2019, the Fee Regulatory Committee set higher fees retroactively for 2018 admissions, prompting college authorities to demand additional payments.

3. Student Protests: Students petitioned the High Court, requesting degree issuance without further payments.

4. Interim Orders: The High Court permitted installment payments for provisional certificates and internships but deferred the matter’s final adjudication.

5. Supreme Court Intervention: Amid delays, the Supreme Court ensured relief by allowing partial deposits and return of original documents under specific conditions.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Was the retrospective application of increased fees lawful and equitable?
2. Could students be compelled to pay revised fees despite prior assurances of conditional fee fixation?
3. Should the students’ professional future remain uncertain due to unresolved litigation?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The retrospective fee hike lacked legal sanctity, violating principles of fairness and legitimate expectations.
2. The High Court’s delays exacerbated their plight, leaving them unable to practice or pursue postgraduate studies.
3. Original fees should suffice, given their substantial prior payments approximating ₹34 lakhs (All India quota) and ₹28 lakhs (State quota), inclusive of security deposits and partial installments.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The Fee Regulatory Committee’s revised structure was a statutory exercise under the 2006 Act, applicable uniformly.
2. Conditional admissions were subject to pending litigation outcomes, a fact acknowledged by students.
3. The institution incurred significant expenses under the revised fees, justifying recovery from students.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 2 of the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006: Defines institutions covered under its ambit.
2. Section 4: Mandates the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to regulate fees.
3. Section 12: Establishes an appellate authority for aggrieved parties.
4. Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act, 2016: Governs the university’s operations.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi The retrospective fee imposition lacked resolution due to High Court delays. In balancing equity, students were allowed conditional deposits for document retrieval, safeguarding their educational and professional rights.

b. Obiter Dicta The High Court’s approach in deferring adjudication was criticized for leaving students in limbo, compelling Supreme Court intervention.

c. Guidelines Issued

• Students must deposit ₹7.5 lakhs additionally to retrieve original documents.
• Undertakings to pay pending amounts upon final High Court disposal were mandatory.
• Interim relief did not prejudice final writ outcomes.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment reflects a balanced judicial approach to address administrative inefficiencies without prejudicing substantive legal issues.

K) References

1. Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006
2. Shri Guru Ram Rai University Act, 2016
3. High Court’s interim orders in WPMS No. 775/2023.
4. Supreme Court’s interim relief orders dated April 28, 2023.