1. Medical education and the fees payable by students have been on the dissection table before this Court on many occasions. The present batch of writ petitions is also one such instance where the students contend that the fee prescribed require to b “dissected” and the alleged collection of Rs.5,00,000/- by the medical colleges for admissions under the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota be declared illegal, in view of the earlier declaration of law by the Division Bench of this Court as confirmed by the Apex Court.
2. The petitioners in these cases contend that the fee payable for admission and later studies in the NRI quota in the Self-Financing Medical Colleges was only Rs.15,00,000/- as fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fee Committee’) constituted under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2017’) and that the Fee Committee determined the fee payable for the academic year 2017 onwards arbitrarily at an exorbitant figure, out of which an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was set apart Towards the “Corpus Fund” so as to finance the education of the students in the BPL category. They point out that the fixation as above has been challenged before this Court and in the judgment reported as Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (3) KLT 615], a Division Bench of this Court found that the Fee Committee has no power to direct payment of a portion of the amount to be collected from the students for any other purpose under the Act, 2017. The fixation was also found to be illegal for various other reasons, directing the Fee Committee to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the directions contained therein. They state that, while the matter was pending consideration before the Committee, the Government issued G.O.(MS) No. 107/2018/H&FWD dated 06.06.2018, framing a scholarship scheme to provide financial assistance to BPL students from the tuition fee fixed by the Fee Committee. Annexure A, forming part of the Government Order issued as above, provides for the composition of a Corpus Fund of Rs.5,00,000/- each from the NRI seat out of the fee to be fixed by the Fee Committee. The afore Government Order was, in turn, challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.33160 of 2018 and connected cases before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 23.07.2023, noticing the earlier judgment in Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute (supra), found that neither the Committee nor the Government had any authority to levy an amount, to be credited to a Corpus Fund, “in the absence of conferment of such authority by the legislature”. Finding so, the writ petitions were disposed of as under:-
“(i) G.O.(MS)No.107/2018/H&FWD dated 6.6.2018 is quashed;
(ii) The amounts collected from each N.R.I student to create a corpus for the benefit of those students belonging to the economically weaker sections of the society shall be transferred to the respective institutions where such N.R.I category students have been admitted and maintained as a separate account to be utilized only for the benefit of students belonging to the economically weaker sections of society who may be admitted to such institutions on the basis of allotment. Such account will only be operated jointly by a nominee of the self financing institution and a nominee of the State Government;
(iii) It will be open to the State of Kerala to promulgate suitable legislative measures to achieve the laudable object of providing scholarships to students belonging to economically weaker sections of the society as observed in Inamdar (supra);
(iv) Till such time as suitable legislative measures are adopted by the State of Kerala no further amounts shall be levied or collected from NRI students already admitted or to be admitted to NRI quota seats in this academic year towards the creation or maintenance of a corpus fund for the benefit of economically weaker sections of the society.”
3. The petitioners further state that the judgment of the Division Bench as above was challenged both by the Medical Colleges as well as the students before the Apex Court, leading to the judgment reported as the State of Kerala v. Principal KMCT Medical College [2025 KHC OnLine 6505]. The Apex Court disposed of the appeals filed as above with the following conclusions and directions:-
“39. In light of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by the self-financing medical colleges in part; dismiss the appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the NRI students; and modify the Impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 23/07/2020, with the following directions and conclusions:
i. The High Court was correct in quashing the Government Order (MS) No. 107/2018/H&FWD dated 06.06.2018;
ii. If the State seeks to establish a corpus fund or any other such mechanism to subsidize education for students from weaker backgrounds, in line with the vision enshrined in P. A. Inamdar (supra), it may do so by enacting suitable Legislation to that effect;
iii. The self-financing medical colleges are entitled to retain the fees transferred to the State for the creation of the ‘corpus fund’ substantially for the purpose of subsidizing the fees charged to BPL students admitted to those colleges, as per the directions contained in paragraph 37 of this judgement;
iv. The BPL students, who were admitted on the basis of scholarship schemes or who are to be admitted in future, shall not be required to pay the full, regular fees. They will continue to pay fees at the subsidized rate fixed by the State or the Committee. If they have paid any fees, over and above the subsidized amount promised, they are entitled to a refund of the amounts so paid. Alternatively, those amounts may be set off against the fees to be charged for later years. Such a refund must be made within 3 months;
v. The State of Kerala is directed to release the fees collected for the creation of a corpus fund back to the respective colleges within a period of 3 months without prejudice to the right and responsibility assigned in paragraph 37 of this judgement;
vi. The NRI students are not entitled to a refund of the amount transferred to the State for the creation of the ‘corpus fund.’ They are directed to pay the entire fees to their respective colleges, as approved by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, if not already done, within 3 months; and
vii. The State of Kerala or the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee is at liberty to direct the colleges to furnish their accounts to establish that the directions given herein have been complied with.”
4. The students state that even before the declaration of law as above by the Apex Court, the Government had issued G.O.(Ms) No.240/2024/H&FWD dated 25.09.2024, providing for the fixation of fee payable by an NRI student at Rs.21,65,720/-, providing further as under:
“2) The Principals of Self Financing Medical Colleges shall collect NRI fees as Rs.16,65,720/- per student. The collection of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) towards Corpus Fund from the NRI quota students shall be subject to the final order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No(s).9885-88/2020 filed by State of Kerala and connected cases against the judgment dated 23/07/2020 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.7771/2018.”
Therefore, the students contend that the fee payable is only Rs.16,65,720/- as found by the Government, and the collection of Rs.5 lakhs towards the Corpus Fund could not be effected in the absence of a valid legislation. They state that the colleges have now started issuing notices to the students directing remittance of the Corpus Fund of Rs.5,00,000/-, and in such circumstances, approached this Court seeking a direction to the colleges not to collect any amount towards “Corpus Fund” from the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Apex Court and also seeking to set aside the notices issued by the colleges as above.
5. I have heard Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Latheef P.K., the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom, and Sri.Pramod, the learned counsel for the other petitioners as well as Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.P.M. Saneer, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Martin Jose, Sri.George Jacob, Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, Sri.Vinod Bhat, and Sri.Roshen D. Alexander, the learned counsel for the respondent medical colleges. I have also heard Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel, Admission Supervisory Committee, and Sri.P.G.Pramod, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.
6. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan would contend that the correct approach while considering the issue is as seen in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5 Government Order. According to him, the Government, with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the judgment of the Apex Court, has accepted that Rs.5 lakhs is to be considered separately and collection, if any, would be subject to the final orders to be issued by the Apex Court. Therefore, according to him, as stated in paragraph 2 of the Government Order, the fee payable by the students would be only Rs.16,65,720/-. He would state that the Apex Court, having confirmed the Division Bench judgment of this Court setting aside the Government Order of the year 2018, there cannot be any collection of amounts towards the Corpus Fund.
7. Sri.Liji J.Vadakedom, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, would seek to rely on the provisions of the Act, 2017, to contend that the term “fee” having been defined under Section 2(f), the tuition fee can only be collected with reference to the afore provision. He further states that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, there cannot be any Corpus Fund creation and hence, the demand of Rs.5 lakhs by the respective colleges have to be set aside. Sri.Pramod, the learned counsel, seeks to adopt the submission made as above, further adding that even according to the fee committee, the basic fee is only Rs.15 lakhs, since it is with reference to that amount, 5% increase has been subsequently adopted.
8. Per contra, Sri.Kannanthanam, the learned senior counsel for the colleges, would contend that the tuition fee has been fixed at Rs.21 lakhs by the Fee Committee as well as by the Government through the Government Orders issued, and the petitioners are not entitled to succeed, since the fixation of the fee by the Government Order has not been challenged. He would further state that, even going by the judgment of the Apex Court, since the Court used the term “entire fee” while issuing the concluding directions, the students have no option but to pay the “entire fee”. According to him, the Apex Court even after confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the Government Order has refused the prayer for refund made by the students and directed the students to satisfy the disputed portion of the fee only because the disputed portion was forming part of the “entire fee” originally sought to be fixed by the colleges as accepted by the Fee Committee. Sri.George Jacob, the learned counsel for some of the colleges, apart from adopting the submissions made as above, would contend that with reference to W.P(C) No.30948 of 2025, one of the petitioners has suppressed the attempt made by him to seek review the judgment of the Apex Court and therefore, the writ petition itself requires to be rejected.
9. Sri.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.P(C) No.32496 of 2025, would point out that a similar attempt made by a student has been rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as evidenced by Ext.R3(b) judgment in W.P(C) No.16489 of 2025 dated 10.06.2025. He would further point out that some of the petitioners, after seeking review/clarification from the Apex Court, have withdrawn the afore application without liberty and therefore, the writ petitions require to be rejected. Smt.Vaheeda, Sri.Vinod Bhat and Sri.Roshan D.Alexander adopts the afore submissions. Sri.Roshan D.Alexander further adds that the respective petitioners, having accepted the admission by their choice, are not entitled to challenge the fee structure. Smt.Mary Benjamin, the learned counsel for the Fee Committee, would invite the attention of this Court to the decision taken by the committee fixing the fee.
10. I have considered the rival submissions made as above, as well as the connected records.
11. It is under the provisions of the Act, 2017, that the fee payable to the private medical institutions in the State of Kerala is being fixed. Under Section 3, the Fee Regulatory Committee is constituted not only for the purpose of supervising and guiding the admission process but also for “fixation of fee” that may be charged from students. A detailed procedure for determining the fee to be charged by a private medical institution is prescribed under Section 11. It was on that basis that the fee was originally fixed by the Fee
Committee for the period from 2017–18 onwards. It is while effecting fixation; the Committee directed the colleges to collect a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the “Corpus Fund” for awarding scholarships to students belonging to the BPL category. A Division Bench of this Court in Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute (supra), has found as under:-
“18. Yet another contention urged by the management is regarding the direction by the Committee to pay `5 lakhs from `20 lakhs collected from NRI category students, to the corpus fund for awarding scholarship to BPL category students. Though the Committee has the power to fix the fee to be collected from NRI category students, there is no power conferred on the Committee to pay portion of the said amount for any other purpose. Section 8 of the 2017 Act, which regulates the functions of the Committee does not provide any such power. Hence, the said directions in the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.”
Thus, as early as 2020, the Division Bench of this Court found that under the Act, 2017, the Fee Committee does not have any such power to bifurcate the fee. Even before that judgment, the Government had come out with the order dated 06.06.2018 referred to earlier, again providing for the creation of a “Corpus Fund” by collecting Rs.5 lakhs each from the NRI seats. This Government Order was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P(C) No.33160 of 2018 and connected cases referred to earlier. The Division Bench has categorically observed that neither the Committee nor the Government had the authority to direct that any amount be credited to the Corpus Fund. The Government Order of the year 2018 is also quashed. The amounts collected from the NRI students were directed to be transferred to the respective institutions and maintained in a separate account, to be utilised exclusively for the benefit of students belonging to the economically weaker sections. The account was directed to be operated jointly by a nominee of the self-financing institution and a nominee of the State Government. It was further directed that, until the State Government promulgates suitable legislation, no further amount shall be levied or collected from the NRI students already admitted or to be admitted to the NRI quota seats towards the creation or maintenance of a Corpus Fund.
12. However, the afore judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the managements as well as the students before the Apex Court. In paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Apex Court, the challenge raised by the respective parties has been noticed as under:-
“4. These directions of the High Court have given rise to three sets of cross-appeals preferred by: (i) The State of Kerala, who is aggrieved by the quashing of its GO dated 06/06/2018; (ii) The self-financing medical colleges, who are challenging the direction that the corpus fund amount be utilized only to subsidize education for students from economically weaker sections of society admitted to the respective institutions; and finally, (iii) The NRI students, who are dissatisfied that the corpus fund amounts have not been refunded to them.”
The Apex court in paragraph 5 of the judgment noticed the factual position leading to the controversy as under:-
“5.1 The Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (the 2017 Act) came into force on 01/06/2017. It was introduced to, among other things, regulate the admission and fixation of fees in private medical educational institutions in the State of Kerala. Sections 3 and 3A of the 2017 Act contemplate the constitution of a Committee, described as the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (Committee). The Committee was tasked to determine the fees charged to students admitted to private medical educational institutions in Kerala based on the annual information and proposals submitted by those colleges.
5.2 KMCT Medical College moved an application and submitted the prospectus for Academic Year 2017-2018 before the Committee on 01.08.2017, requesting it to fix the fees for NRI students at Rs. 20 lakhs per annum.
5.3 The Committee, on 27.02.2018, approved the fixation of fees for NRI students at Rs. 20 lakhs per annum for all medical colleges whose fee was to be regulated under the 2017 Act. Notedly, it decided to enhance the fees for NRI students from Rs. 15 lakhs per annum in Academic Year 2016-2017 to Rs.20 lakhs per annum in Academic Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, with the condition that the extra amount of Rs. 5 lakhs would be kept as a ‘corpus fund’ to provide scholarships to BPL students. The Committee further directed that the corpus fund amount would be remitted to the State Government, as and when so directed by the State, the Committee, or a Court of Law. This decision was substantiated by quoting paragraph 131 of P. A. Inamdar (supra), where it was held that the fees collected from NRI students should be utilized to benefit students from economically weaker sections of society.
5.4 KMCT Medical College, being aggrieved, laid challenge to the Committee’s decision before the High Court.
5.5 During the pendency of the writ proceedings before the High Court, the Government of Kerala issued the GO dated 06.06.2018, seemingly to validate and support the Committee’s decision dated 27.02.2018. It emphasized that the mainstay of the corpus fund would be the amounts earmarked and collected from NRI students who were admitted to self-financing medical educational institutions in the State. Much like the Committee’s decision, the GO dated 06/06/2018 was statedly issued in pursuance of the directions contained in paragraph 131 of P. A. Inamdar (supra). Compelled by the GO dated 06/06/2018, the self-financing medical colleges consequently began collecting Rs.20 lakhs per annum as fees from the newly admitted NRI students, while remitting Rs.5 lakhs to the corpus fund.”
(Underlining supplied)
Thus, there can be no dispute that the decision taken by the Fee Committee in 2018 was to increase the fee payable by the NRI students to Rs.20 lakhs per annum. It was only the decision of the Fee Committee to bifurcate a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the increased fee for the creation of a Corpus Fund, that led to the litigation.
13. The Apex Court also, in paragraph 10 of the judgment, arrived at the issues arising for consideration as under:-
“10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at length, we find that the following issues arise for our consideration:
i. Whether the Committee had the power to determine and direct that a particular amount of the fees charged to NRI students be kept in a corpus fund maintained by the State?
ii. Whether the NRI students are entitled to a refund of the amount so charged or whether it can be set off against fees to be charged for later years?”
Thus, after framing the issues in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Apex Court found that “it is difficult to accept that the committee can create a Corpus Fund on the strength of transitional powers given to it in P.A Inamdar”. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, the Apex Court found as under:-
“19. A conjoint reading of paragraph 131 of P. A. Inamdar (supra) and paragraph 7 of Islamic Academy (supra) amplifies the idea that the Committee’s power is not limitless. Such a combined reading leads us to the conclusion that: (i) the Committee is competent to prescribe fees in respect of the NRI quota in self-financing medical educational institutions until the State enacts appropriate Legislation or Regulations; and (ii) the Committee cannot draw unlimited powers under the guise of ‘regulation of NRI quota/seats.’ In other words, the Committee can only make rules for admission to such seats and can review the fees charged to NRI students to ensure that they are not exploitative. This is the cumulative power granted to the Committee within which it must act. The Committee cannot perforate these bounds unless and until its power is expanded through a suitable Legislation or upon a direction by this Court.
20. In light of the above, it is evident that paragraph 131 of P. A. Inamdar (supra) does not clothe the Committee with the power to create a corpus fund for the benefit of economically weaker students. It only directs the State to come up with a suitable plan to subsidize their education through the fees charged from NRI students. The Committee cannot usurp the powers vested in the State in this regard.”
14. After finding so, the judgment of the Division Bench striking down the 2018 Government Order was found to be correct. Thereafter, the second issue as to whether the students were entitled to a refund or a set-off was considered by the Apex Court. The contentions raised by both the management and the students were noted by the Apex Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment, as under: -
“29. The NRI students contend that when the imposition of such an amount has been held to be illegal, there is no reasonable justification for the State or the self-financing medical colleges to retain it. Further, these students claim that paragraph 67 of P. A. Inamdar (supra) only requires an NRI student to subsidize two other students’ fees. Accordingly, it is their specific contention that when the fees for regular students are set at Rs. 5 lakhs per annum, the NRI students cannot be charged more than Rs. 15 lakhs per annum.
30. Contrarily, the self-financing medical colleges contend that the fees charged under the heading of ‘corpus fund’ should be returned to them to enable their continued functioning. The amounts collected for the corpus fund were unfairly deducted from the proposals submitted, leaving the colleges to function with fees much lower than what was genuinely projected by them. The fees charged from NRI students are utilized not only to subsidize education for students from economically weaker backgrounds but also for various upkeep and continuous development expenses to improve the quality of education.”
Thereafter, the Apex Court found as under: -
“35. Since the self-financing institutions are the best judge of their own needs and expenses, there appears to be no reason why they cannot retain the amount that was to be transferred to the corpus fund, when those amounts came out of the fee structures already approved by the Committee. By approving the proposals at the relevant time, the Committee has signified that the fees proposed to be charged were reasonable and did not amount to profiteering.
36. In the same vein, self-financing medical educational institutions that were aggrieved by the Committee’s actions and sought reconsideration of their proposals from 2017-2018 onwards by virtue of directions issued by this Court in Najiya Neermunda v. Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, are also entitled to retain the amount claimed by the State under the heading of ‘corpus fund,’ if any.”
(Underlining supplied)
Thus, it is again reiterated by the Apex Court that Rs.5 lakhs comes out of the fee as fixed by the Committee. Thereafter, in paragraph 37 of the judgment, the Apex Court, after allowing the colleges to retain the fees which were diverted to the Corpus Fund, held that the educational institutions were under the obligation to provide quality education to the BPL students who were admitted to those colleges, and no additional fees of any nature shall be charged from the BPL students. The Fee Committee was also permitted to direct the colleges to furnish their accounts and to establish that the amounts so collected are being utilised for the aforesaid purposes and not at the colleges’ discretion. It is on the basis of the above discussions and findings that the Apex Court rendered the conclusions and directions in paragraph 39 of its judgment noticed earlier.
15. From all the above, there cannot be any dispute that:
i. The Fee Committee decided to approve the fixation of the fee from NRI students at Rs.20 lakhs.
ii. After deciding to enhance the fee as above, Rs.5 lakhs was directed to be diverted as “Corpus Fund”, by remitting the same to the State Government.
iii. The decision of the Fee Committee is followed by the Government Order of the year 2018.
iv. The Division Bench of this Court found that the Fee Committee has no such power for diverting a portion of the fee and also quashed the Government Order of 2018, however, adding that no further amount shall be levied or collected from the NRI students towards the Corpus Fund.
v. In appeals, the Apex Court permitted the medical colleges to retain the fee transferred to the State as noticed earlier, for the purpose of subsidising the education of the BPL students. It is categorically found that the NRI students are not entitled to any refund of the amount transferred to the State for the creation of a Corpus Fund.
vi. The students were also directed to pay the “entire fee” to their respective colleges as approved by the Fee Committee within a time frame.
vii. The amount of Rs.5 lakhs is coming out of the fee as prescribed by the Fee Committee.
Thus, it is clear that it is only on account of the decision taken by the Fee Committee to create a Corpus Fund, followed by the Government Order issued in 2018, that the students have raised the contention that they need not remit any amount towards the Corpus Fund. True, as contended by the students, they are not liable to pay any amount towards the Corpus Fund. However, parties need to pay the tuition fee as fixed/approved by the Committee and the Government. The students appear to be under the mistaken assumption that the fee was only Rs. 15 lakhs and that an additional amount of Rs.5 lakhs was being collected as a Corpus Fund. As already discussed, there cannot be any dispute that the fee was already Rs.20 lakhs, and it is the decision taken by the Fee Committee, as endorsed by the Government, that led to the present controversy.
16. It is also noticed that in the subsequent Government Orders, after fixing the fee at Rs.21,65,720/-, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs is stated to be towards the Corpus Fund. Again, this decision was taken pending the appeals before the Apex Court. Even this decision of the Government does not appear to be correct. However, there has been no challenge to the Government Order dated 25.09.2024 at any point in time. Furthermore, a similar challenge raised against the demand of Rs.5 lakhs has already been considered and dismissed following the judgment in Principal KMCT Medical College (supra) by judgment dated 10.10.2025 in W.P(C) No.16489 of 2025.
17. Though submissions were also made on the basis of the proceedings of the Fee Committee which adopted the fee of Rs.15 lakhs as the base figure to apply 5% enhancement to state that the Committee also accepts the above figure as the fee payable, I am of the opinion that the Committee went wrong in applying the above as the base figure, as already found. Therefore, in my opinion, this contention need not be adjudicated.
On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Therefore, these writ petitions would stand dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioners were enjoying protection with respect to the payment of the disputed component projected by the students as “Corpus Fund”, they are granted six weeks' time from today to satisfy the arrears. In cases where the students have furnished bank guarantees, steps for encashing the bank guarantees shall be taken only after the expiry of six weeks.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |