The Supreme Court warns private medical colleges against charging extra fees from BPL students, mandating only subsidized rates and ordering refunds for any excess amounts collected.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a monumental judgment that strengthens access to medical education for economically disadvantaged students, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that private medical colleges cannot charge Below Poverty Line (BPL) students any amount beyond the subsidized fees set by the state or regulatory authorities.
This decision, although stemming from a case in Kerala, carries nationwide implications, bringing relief to thousands of aspiring doctors from underprivileged backgrounds.
In a progressive and far-reaching judgment, the Supreme Court of India has taken a bold step to ensure fairness and inclusivity in the realm of medical education. In a ruling that will greatly benefit economically disadvantaged students across the country, the apex court declared that private medical institutions cannot charge students from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families anything beyond the subsidized fee amount prescribed for MBBS courses.
This landmark decision came in a case from Kerala, but its implications stretch nationwide, offering hope and relief to thousands of underprivileged students striving to enter the medical profession.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, held that BPL students admitted under scholarship schemes, whether currently enrolled or seeking admission in the future, must be allowed to continue their studies at the subsidized rate set by the State or the Fee Regulatory Committee.
This ruling is a direct blow to the exploitative practices of many private institutions that demand excessive fees under various pretexts. The Court mandated that any excess fees already collected from BPL students must be refunded within three months or adjusted against fees for future academic years, ensuring that justice is not just prospective but also retrospective.
Justice Kant, who authored the judgment, stated,
“BPL students admitted through scholarship schemes, both current and future enrollees, are not required to pay the full regular fees. They will continue to pay at the subsidized rate established by the State or Fee Regulatory Committee.”
Interestingly, while adjudicating the matter, the Supreme Court also upheld a Kerala High Court verdict which had quashed a state directive requiring private colleges to deposit higher fees collected from NRI students with the government.
Instead, the apex court ruled that
“Private institutions are permitted to retain these funds for creating their own corpus specifically aimed at subsidizing the education of BPL students. However, if the state of Kerala wishes to establish its own corpus fund to aid students from economically weaker sections, it must do so through proper legislative mechanisms.”
The Court also instructed the state to return previously collected corpus funds to the respective colleges within three months. At the same time, it clarified that NRI students are not eligible for refunds from such corpus funds and must pay their full fees to their colleges within the same timeframe if they haven’t already.
The judgment also drew attention to Tamil Nadu’s model Fee Fixation Committee, which is a statutory body tasked with setting and regulating fees in private medical colleges. Though this mechanism is in place, many institutions have flouted its norms, prompting the Court to demand strict compliance. It stressed that no college should impose arbitrary or hidden charges beyond what is officially notified. In doing so, the Court highlighted the urgent need for transparency, accountability, and equity in the education sector.
This ruling is not just a win for students from economically weaker backgrounds, it’s a decisive step toward reclaiming the integrity of India’s higher education system. It ensures that merit and dreams, not money and privilege, will define who gets to become a doctor.
Case Title: Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust Etc. versus Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure of Private Professional Colleges & Ors. Etc.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3978-3995 of 2017
READ ORDER HERE
