Madras HC bars medical college from charging additional tuition fees, orders refund to MBBS students

Chennai: Observing that education must not be merely viewed as a commercial venture, but must remain a noble service, the Madras High Court recently ruled against medical colleges charging additional tuition fees in the name of a break fee or miscellaneous fee.

While hearing a batch of petitions filed by MBBS students from CARE University, who challenged the break fee imposed on them, the HC bench comprising Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan also directed the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (CARE) University to refund the deposit made by the students with interest of 6% per annum.

The Court, in its judgment, observed that when educational institutions focus on profit-making, it undermines the very essence of the institutions and becomes counterproductive to the larger purpose they seek to serve.

"Education must not be perceived merely as a commercial venture undertaken for profit. It is, and must remain, a noble service to society that carries with it a profound moral and constitutional responsibility. While students are expected to invest their time, discipline and commitment in shaping their careers, educational institutions, on their part, bear the solemn duty of shaping intellects and nurturing responsible citizens who will illuminate the nation’s future. The pursuit of profit making may well define other enterprises, but when applied to education, such an approach undermines its very essence and becomes counterproductive to the larger purpose it seeks to serve," observed the HC bench.

These observations were made by the High Court bench while considering a batch of petitions filed by the students who had joined the MBBS course at CARE University in the academic years 2014- 15, 2017- 18, and 2018- 19 under the management quota.

However, when they were to start their mandatory internship, the University allegedly asked for Rs 2 lakh per subject per arrear exam from the petitioners, in addition to Rs 35,000 as exam fee.

Allegedly, the university asked the petitioners to remit the break fee within a stipulated time and blocked their college access and face identity access after they failed to pay the break fee. Further, the University directed the concerned departments not to allow the petitioners to attend internships without the payment of a break fee and not to provide with provisional certificate.

Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court and argued that the demand for the break fee was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. They further contended that the university could not collect an excess fee apart from the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee.

The petitioners pointed out that the University Grants Commission and the National Medical Commission regulate the fee structure for all deemed to be universities, and the university agreed to all the stipulations of the UGC Act, including the fee structure. They argued that the collection of a capitation fee in any form is prohibited under Section 24 of the UGC Act, and the CARE University had made a demand apart from the fee fixed by the committee, against the provisions of the Act.

Meanwhile, the UGC submitted that seeking donation or a capitation fee in whatever nomenclature or form, either directly or indirectly, is strictly prohibited and all the deemed to be universities should follow the rules and regulations regarding fee structure, number of seats, etc, issued by the relevant bodies, and the fee should be fixed transparently.

On the other hand, the University opposed the plea and submitted that the issue of the fee could not be raised before the Court as the same was already seized by the Supreme Court of India. Justifying the fee, the University submitted that it was collected for supplementary classes attended by them. The University contended that this amount could not be seen as a donation or contribution that is received in the form of capitation.

It was argued by the University that the break fee was not any additional fee but a tuition fee collected for extra classes for failed students. According to the University, the petitioners had failed multiple times due to various reasons and formed a separate break batch. Due to this, the University allegedly had to impart additional classes and additional clinic session and therefore, additional costs were incurred for this.

Taking note of the arguments and submissions, the HC bench observed that there was no compulsion to attend supplementary classes as per the regulations.

"It is true that supplementary examinations are conducted and the students are required to pass all the subjects by the end of their professional year in order to proceed to the next year, since the Regulation 8 of the Medical Council of India Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 mandates that only after completion of first professional year, the students can enter into Phase II and after completion of second professional examination, the students are permitted to enter into third professional examinations. But no Regulation speaks about the supplementary classes except the handbook and circular issued by the CARE University," observed the HC bench.

"Therefore, those who have failed in the examinations are not compelled to attend the supplementary classes. Regulation 7.7 of the Medical Council of India Regulations says that supplementary examination may be conducted within six months so that the students may pass and join in the main batch and the failed students will have to appear for examinations in the subsequent year. But it doesn't mandate supplementary classes for the students who had failed," it further noted.

Apart from this, the bench noted that even the prospectus of the CARE University did not speak about the break fee i.e. extra fee for the extended course. "After admission, the students were provided with hand book of the CARE University and in the hand book indicates that any candidate who fails to pass the annual examination of the CARE University as prescribed shall have the course extended according to the regulations of the course of study and such candidate shall have to pay tuition fee and other fees for the extended duration of the course," noted the Court.

Therefore, the HC bench observed that

"no regulation has prescribed extra classes for the extended course. When it is not mandatory, no student can be compelled to attend such extra classes. Therefore, the payment of tuition and other fees for the extended duration of course doesn't arise."

Examining the role of the University in this regard, the Court further noted, "No regulation mandates supplementary classes or special classes for supplementary examinations. The CARE University on it's own capacity had compelled the students to attend the special coaching sessions to write their supplementary examination and had also arbitrarily sought for fees for the same. On one hand, they made those extra classes mandatory and on the other hand, they informed that those who had paid the prescribed fees alone should be permitted to attend the special classes. Therefore, the hand book and the circulars issued by the CARE University are against the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India."

Accordingly, the Court directed the University not to charge any additional tuition fee in the form of a break fee or miscellaneous fee. Further, the Court issued the following directions:

(i) the CARE University is directed not to charge any additional tuition fee in the form of break fee/miscellaneous fee.

(ii) the State Government, UGC and National Medical Council are directed to implement the fee structure fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee to all deemed to be universities including the CARE University.

(iii) the CARE University is also directed to refund the deposit made by the petitioners in view of the interim order passed by this Court with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

(iv) the CARE University shall release all the educational certificates which were produced by the petitioners at the time of their admission, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, to pursue their future career.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/309819.pdf

Also Read: Parliamentary Panel calls for Cheaper Private Medical Education, Capitation Fees reform