While stressing on timely fee determination and effective regulatory oversight, the Supreme Court has upheld protection against revised fees for students admitted before 16 October 2023, and rejected the High Court’s reasoning based on retrospectivity, equity and estoppel. authorities must notify the fees payable for the entire professional course before students take admission, ensuring certainty about their financial liability.
The Apex Court permitted changes only in exceptional circumstances, such as unforeseen increases in expenditure. An exceptional adjustment mechanism cannot substitute for timely assessment and proper institutional planning. The Court faulted the fee fixation committee and State Government for failing to complete the revision before the academic session. It nevertheless upheld the students’ protection on independent grounds, rejecting retrospectivity, equity and estoppel as the legal basis.
While affirming that revised fees cannot apply to students admitted before 16 October 2023, the Apex Court clarified that excess collections must be refunded before the next semester or adjusted against its fees, with any remaining balance refunded within one month of that semester’s commencement. The Apex Court also required institutionalisation of fee fixation committees and judicial review by High Courts to ensure efficiency, expertise and integrity, serving both aspiring students and credible private educational institutions.
Briefly, the students admitted to Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College’s 2023–27 B.Tech. courses in September 2023 challenged a fee increase introduced after their admission. A West Bengal Government notification dated 16 October 2023 raised the maximum annual tuition fee for self-financing professional colleges to Rs. 1.10 lakhs. The college subsequently increased tuition fees and introduced a development fee from the second semester, beginning January 2024. The students confined their challenge to applying the revised fees to their already-admitted batch, abandoning their challenge to the notification itself.
The Single Judge dismissed the students’ petitions, relying, among other things, on the prospectus clause stating that fees could change according to government decisions. The Division Bench reversed that decision and held that the revised fees could apply only to students admitted on or after 16 October 2023. It also directed the refund or adjustment of additional amounts collected from students admitted before that date. The college and other self-financing professional colleges appealed to the Supreme Court.
Also read Gujarat High Court Upholds Non-Taxability of Rs. 50 Crores Nirma Trademark Sale Receipt
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that fee regulation must balance students’ and parents’ need for certainty, institutions’ need for adequate resources to provide quality education, and the public interest in reasonable fees and timely regulation. Professional-course fees represent a substantial financial commitment for families, often supported by educational loans. At the same time, self-financing institutions require resources for infrastructure, faculty and operational expenses, and must be permitted a reasonable return for sustenance and further development.
The Court stressed that fee fixation committees and competent authorities must complete the fee determination process before admissions begin, taking foreseeable costs over the course’s duration into account. It attributed the present dispute to the delayed fee-revision exercise by the committee and the State Government, rather than blaming the college for seeking to implement the revised fees. However, it rejected the Division Bench’s reasoning based on retrospectivity and the application of equity and estoppel against the college through its admission brochure.
