The Supreme Court has held that fees for professional courses must be determined and notified before students take admission, and that changes during the course are permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as an unforeseen increase in expenditure.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld the protection granted to students against a mid-course fee increase by self-financing professional colleges in West Bengal. It also affirmed directions requiring colleges to refund or adjust additional amounts collected from students whose admissions had been completed before October 16, 2023.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The dispute concerned students admitted to the 2023–27 B.Tech. batch at Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College, a self-financing institution affiliated to the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology.
The students completed their admissions in September 2023 after participating in the centralised counselling process. The college had published a fee structure for the course, although its prospectus contained a clause stating that fees could change in accordance with government decisions.
On October 16, 2023, after admissions had concluded, the West Bengal Government issued a notification revising the maximum fees chargeable by private self-financing engineering, technology, pharmacy and architecture colleges.
The notification fixed the maximum annual tuition fee at ₹1.10 lakh per student and permitted development fees of up to 15% of the prescribed tuition fee. It also allowed qualifying institutions with specified accreditation, autonomous status or ranking to charge an additional 10% tuition fee.
Acting on the notification, the college revised its fee structure on December 15, 2023, making the higher charges applicable from January 2024, the second semester onwards. The judgment records that the revision resulted in a 37.5% increase in fees, alongside the introduction of a development fee payable each semester.
After their requests for a rollback were unsuccessful, the students approached the Calcutta High Court.
Although the students initially challenged both the government notification and the revised college fees, they subsequently confined their challenge to the application of the higher charges to students already admitted for the 2023–27 course.
Their principal argument relied on Regulation 7 of the All India Council for Technical Education’s 1994 fee and admission regulations, particularly the requirement to intimate the fees chargeable for the entire course in advance.
A Single Judge dismissed the petitions on January 15, 2026, relying, among other things, on the prospectus clause permitting changes pursuant to government decisions.
The Division Bench reversed that decision on March 23, 2026. It held that the revised fees could apply to students admitted on or after October 16, 2023, but could not be imposed on those whose admissions had already been completed.
It also directed the refund or adjustment of additional fees collected from the protected students. The college and other self-financing institutions challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court explained that professional education frequently requires families to commit a substantial portion of their income and savings. Many students also depend on education loans.
Unexpected increases can therefore disrupt financial planning and create insecurity for students and their parents. The Court held that an effective regulatory system must enable families to assess the financial obligation before committing to a course.
“A student entering a four-or five-year professional programme should ordinarily know, at the very threshold, the financial liability that they or their family is undertaking,” the Bench observed.
The Court said that advance determination promotes transparency, informed choice and financial planning. Fee-setting authorities should therefore assess foreseeable increases over the duration of a course when determining the applicable charges.
The Bench clarified that certainty does not mean a fee structure must remain incapable of adjustment in every conceivable situation.
Extraordinary economic conditions, statutory changes or other developments that could not reasonably have been anticipated may justify an exceptional adjustment. A narrowly defined mechanism may be provided to address such circumstances.
However, the Court stressed that such adjustments must remain exceptional and cannot substitute for timely cost assessment and proper institutional planning.
Its operative directions require the relevant authorities to notify the fees payable for the entire course before admission, with variations during the course permitted only in exceptional instances, including unforeseen increases in expenditure.
The Court recognised that the demand for high-quality professional education cannot realistically be met exclusively through public resources.
Self-financing institutions incur substantial expenditure on land, buildings, laboratories, libraries, technology, student services and staff. They must also be able to offer suitable remuneration to attract and retain competent teachers.
After meeting legitimate operational and developmental expenditure, institutions must be permitted a reasonable return for their sustenance and future development, the Bench said.
It warned that delayed fee revisions can create revenue deficits, transfer financial burdens to later batches, or adversely affect infrastructure, teaching quality and student welfare. Periodic and timely revision is therefore necessary.
The Supreme Court placed particular emphasis on the functioning of fee fixation committees, describing them as bodies performing an important public function.
Reading Regulations 7(1), 7(4) and 7(5) together, the Court explained that fee revisions must proceed through committee recommendations, ordinarily with a minimum interval of three years. The assessment must consider expenditure necessary for efficient functioning, including at least two years of audited recurring expenditure and projected requirements for the next three years.
The committees should examine infrastructure costs, faculty remuneration, maintenance, technology, statutory requirements and other legitimate expenses. Their recommendations, and the government’s decisions on them, must be completed sufficiently early to allow fees to be settled before admissions begin.
The Bench also directed High Courts to exercise judicial review to ensure that these committees function with efficiency, expertise and integrity.
In this case, the previous fee revision dated back to the 2016–17 academic year.
An expert committee was constituted in November 2019, and its recommendations were adopted by the Fee Structure Committee on June 9, 2023. Nevertheless, the government notification was issued only on October 16, 2023, after the relevant admissions.
The Supreme Court criticised the failure of the committee and the State Government to complete the exercise in time.
It acknowledged the college’s concern about implementing revised fees after a prolonged interval, but observed that the dispute could have been avoided had the government issued its notification before the academic session commenced.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s final directions protecting students whose admissions had concluded before October 16, 2023.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
