Education Should Not Merely Be Perceived As Commercial Venture, Must Remain Noble Service: Madras High Court

While doing so, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan remarked that education must not be merely viewed as a commercial venture but must remain a noble service to society. The court added 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,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by students who had joined the CARE University in the academic years 2014- 15, 2017- 18, and 2018- 19 in the MBBS course under the management quota. After completing the examinations, before the petitioners were to start their internship, the university asked the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 per subject per arrear exam, in addition to Rs. 35,000 as exam fee. 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. The university also directed the concerned departments not to permit the petitioners to attend internships without payment of a break fee and not to provide with provisional certificate.

The petitioners argued that the demand for the break fee was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It was argued that the university could not collect an excess fee apart from the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee. It was pointed out that the University Grants Commission and the National Medical Council regulate the fee structure for all deemed to be universities, and the university was amenable to all the stipulations of the UGC Act, including the fee structure.

The petitioners argued that Section 24 of the UGC Act, read with UGC Regulations, prohibits the collection of a capitation fee in any form. It was argued that the CARE University had made a demand apart from the fee fixed by the committee, against the provisions of the Act.

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

The university, on the other hand, opposed the plea and submitted that the issue of the fee could not be raised before the court as it was already seized with the Supreme Court of India. The University justified the fee and submitted that it was collected for supplementary classes attended by them. It was argued that this amount, by no stretch of imagination, could be seen as a donation or contribution that is received in the form of capitation.

The university argued that the break fee was not an additional fee but a tuition fee collected for extra classes conducted for failed students. It was argued that all the petitioners had failed multiple times due to various reasons and formed a separate break batch altogether for which the university had to impart additional classes and additional clinic session and for which additional costs were incurred.

The court noted that as per the regulations, there was no compulsion to attend supplementary classes. The court also noted that the prospectus of the University did not speak about the break fee for extended course. Thus, the court noted that when it was not mandatory to attend supplementary classes, the students could not be compelled to attend such extra classes and the payment of tuition fee for such extended duration would not arise.

The court thus held that the university had, on its own capacity, compelled the students to attend the special coaching sessions and write their supplementary examination and had also arbitrarily sought fee for the same. The court held that the handbook and the circulars issued by the university are against the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India.

The court thus directed the university to not charge any additional tuition fee in the form of break fee or miscellaneous fee. The court also directed the State Government, UGC and the National Medical Council to implement the fee structure fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee to all deemed to be universities.

The court directed the university to refund the deposit made by the petitioner within 2 weeks and to release all educational certificates which were produced by the petitioners at the time of their admission.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel For Mr. R. Swarnavel

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel, For Mr. T. Balaji, Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, Special Panel Counsel, Mrs. V. Sudha Special Panel Counsel

Case Title: RK Sarathkumaran v. The Chairman and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Case No: W.P.No.39756 of 2024 etc