Education Must Not Be Perceived Merely As Commercial Venture: Madras High Court Directs College Not To Charge Additional Tuition Fee

The Madras High Court has remarked that education must not be perceived merely as a commercial venture undertaken for profit.

The Court remarked thus in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by students seeking direction to the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (CARE) to implement the fee structure prescribed by the Fee Fixation Committee and to direct the said College not to charge additional tuition fee in the form of Break Fee/miscellaneous fee.

A Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed, “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 Bench added that 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.

Senior Advocate T. Gowthaman appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate M.S. Krishnan and Special Panel Counsel (SPC) V. Sudha appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

All the Petitioners had joined in the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (Deemed to be University) in the academic year 2014-15, 2017-18, and 2018-19 in the MBBS course under the management quota. They passed all the examinations conducted by the CARE University in nine semesters. Though they had arrears in some papers, they subsequently cleared all the papers in the following academic years. However, all had to complete their internship to get their MBBS degree certificate. Though the Petitioners had written supplementary examinations and passed all the examinations, they did not undergo any extra classes. Till the beginning of their internship, the CARE University did not speak about the break fee.

All of a sudden, they had 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. Further, they were served with a calculation memo and a demand notice to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- per arrear paper. They had also received E-mail from the University to remit the break fee within a stipulated time. As per the Petitioners, they were not explained in respect of such demand by the University even after approaching it. Since they did not pay the break fee, the University blocked their access from entering into the college and face identity access was also denied. The University also informed the concerned departments not to permit the Petitioners to attend internships without payment of break fee. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court, seeking release of the original educational certificates to them to pursue their career.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “Though the CARE University produced some evidences for conducting extra classes, according to the petitioners they had not attended any of those extra classes till the time of clearing all the papers. Hence, no extra classes were conducted by the CARE University. Though the CARE University provided extra classes to the students who failed in their examination in order to write their supplementary examination, it doesn't require any additional tuition fee.”

The Court noted that even according to the CARE University, the students, who failed, were directed to attend the classes with their junior batch in order to compensate their attendance deficiency and it doesn't amount to extra classes in a separate batch.

“It is true that those who passed their supplementary examination, will be treated as separate batch, if they failed to complete their examination with the main batch”, it added.

The Court further emphasised that the CARE University is amenable to all the stipulations of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act) including its fee structure.

“The regulating Act strictly prohibits the collection of capitation fee in any form and instructed the deemed to be universities not to fleece the students by any fee or charges other than what was declared to them at the time of admission in the prospectus. Further Section 24 of the UGC Act, 1956 r/w UGC Regulations, 2023, specifically prohibits collection of capitation fee in any form”, it also observed.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –

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

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

(iii) the CARE University shall refund the deposit made by the Petitioners in view of the interim order passed by the 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 the 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.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- R.K. Sarathkumara v. The Chairman, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (CARE) & Ors. (Case Number: W.P.No.39756 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate T. Gowthaman and Advocate R. Swarnavel.

Respondents: Senior Advocate M.S. Krishnan, Advocate T. Balaji, SPCs V. Sudha, and B. Rabu Manohar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment