NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges cannot be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly Rs 19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are self-financing. “Annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private college and a govt one,” Justice Nagarathna said.Justice Nagarathna said, “The annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it.” “Private colleges are also contributing to the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees,” she further said. The petitioner, whose parents in Rajasthan have an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and Rs 19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means.His counsel Rishabh Sancheti informed the bench that students in EWS category, who scored less marks than him, were allotted EWS quota seats where candidates pay fee for MBBS courses at govt fixed rate which is less than the general category seats in private colleges.The counsel further said the HC failed to appreciate that non-provisioning of 10% seats for EWS category students in MBBS courses by Rajasthan govt breached the constitutional mandate and permitted extortion of Rs 19 to 25 lakh annual tuition fee from poor families. The petitioner also challenged the arbitrary allotment of a general category seat instead of an EWS quota seat.Sancheti said that states like West Bengal and Maharashtra have implemented the 10% EWS quota even in private colleges. “We do not see any reason to interfere with the HC order,” the bench said and dismissed the petition while asking the student to avail of scholarships to pursue his studies. However, knowing the importance of the issue, it said the question of law involved in the case is kept open for adjudication in a future appropriate case.Sancheti said that non-implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation as envisaged under Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having applied in EWS category.Get the latest India news and live updates. Download the TOI App.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosTMC MP Mahua Moitra Clarifies After Praise For Suvendu Adhikari Sparks Political Buzz In BengalBengaluru Metro Breakdown Triggers Commuter Chaos As Stranded Passengers Climb Lorries”They Saved Their Goods And Left Us To Die”: Survivor’s Explosive Claims Rock Aliganj Fire ProbeMumbai Local Train Horror: 22-Year-Old Stabbed To Death After Door Dispute, Accused On The RunKolkata Warehouse Roof Collapse: 3 Dead, Several Injured, Rescue Ops UnderwayPM Modi Invited To Ayatollah Khamenei’s Funeral? Tehran Plans Massive Funeral For KhameneiLucknow Fire Horror: Demolition Order Revoked A Decade Ago, Illegal Building Claimed 15 LivesBJP Seeks Bhagwant Mann’s Arrest | Forensic Expert Alleges ₹10 Lakh Bribe To Fake Viral Video ReportIAF Set to Receive 1st Made-in-India C295 in September — Here’s What the Milestone Means’Papa, Save Me’: 10-Year-Old Abducted, Raped And Killed In Delhi; Chilling Details Emerge123PhotostoriesFrom Priyanka Chopra’s Rolex era to Katrina Kaif’s Rado reign: Bollywood’s most iconic watch ambassadorsTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: From mimicking Charlie Chaplin, having no work for 7-8 years to working with Dilip Joshi, SRK-Salman; Sharad Sankla aka Abdul gets candid about lifeNot just Usha Vance: 5 women in power who turned grey hair into a symbol of confidenceWeekend K-drama releases: From ‘Notes from the Last Row’ to ‘Agent Kim Reactivated’UK heatwave intensifies: UKHSA approved tips to keep your home coolAngiography and Angioplasty are not the same: Here’s what every heart patient should knowWarren Buffett’s unusual love life: The billionaire who stayed married while living with another womanRinging in your ears after a day in the sun? Doctor explains the surprising heatwave-tinnitus connection10 beautiful baby girl names inspired by ancient goddesses and their powerful meanings5 Kapoor couples who are setting serious marriage goals123Hot PicksPunjab police admit cardDevina GahlotDonald Trump avenueMumbai rainsCBSE 12th revaluationBihar school timingsSpanish proverbAfghan proverbPortuguese proverbTop TrendingDelhi Rape MurderUS-Iran WarITR filing 2025-26FIFA World Cup 2026England vs Ghana FIFA World Cup ResultICAI CA Inter May resultLucknow coaching fireGold rate todayWho was Ketan AgarwalMumbai rain
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges cannot be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly Rs 19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are self-financing. “Annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private college and a govt one,” Justice Nagarathna said.Justice Nagarathna said, “The annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it.” “Private colleges are also contributing to the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees,” she further said. The petitioner, whose parents in Rajasthan have an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and Rs 19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means.His counsel Rishabh Sancheti informed the bench that students in EWS category, who scored less marks than him, were allotted EWS quota seats where candidates pay fee for MBBS courses at govt fixed rate which is less than the general category seats in private colleges.The counsel further said the HC failed to appreciate that non-provisioning of 10% seats for EWS category students in MBBS courses by Rajasthan govt breached the constitutional mandate and permitted extortion of Rs 19 to 25 lakh annual tuition fee from poor families. The petitioner also challenged the arbitrary allotment of a general category seat instead of an EWS quota seat.Sancheti said that states like West Bengal and Maharashtra have implemented the 10% EWS quota even in private colleges. “We do not see any reason to interfere with the HC order,” the bench said and dismissed the petition while asking the student to avail of scholarships to pursue his studies. However, knowing the importance of the issue, it said the question of law involved in the case is kept open for adjudication in a future appropriate case.Sancheti said that non-implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation as envisaged under Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having applied in EWS category.
