| CITATION | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1143,AIROLINE 2021 2021 SC 86 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 25 February ,2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Najiya Neeramunda |
| RESPONDENT | Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust |
| BENCH | Chief Justice ,L.Nageshwara Rao, S.Ravindra Bhat |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Najiya Neeramunda vs Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust involves the contentious issue of fee fixation for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges in Kerala has evolved through a series of legislative reforms, judicial interpretations ,and administrative challenges .Beginning with Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions Act of 2006, the state sought to regulate admissions and prevent exploitative fee structure in professional education.This legislation was later supplanted by the Kerala Medical Education Act of 2017 ,which aimed to further refine fee regulations and establish the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. However,the implementation of the 2017 Act faced immediate legal scrutiny .The admission and Fee Regulatory Committee’s authority to provisionally fix fees became a focal point of contention, leading to multiple legal challenges in the High Court of Kerala .Key disputes revolved around whether the Committee could unilaterally set fees or was restricted to scrutinising fee proposals put forth by private medical colleges. The High Court’s rulings reflected a nuanced interpretation of the Committee’s powers under the 2017 Act .While affirming the committee’s role in preventing profiteering and ensuring fees were non-exploitative ,the court emphasized procedural fairness and the statutory obligations of the Committee. Disputes over the adequacy of hearings ,the scope of financial audits required for fee determination,and the timelines for finalising fee structures persisted\d throughout the litigation process.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The case revolves around legal appeals concerning the fixation of fees for MBBS courses in private self-financing medical colleges within Kerala Medical Education Act of 2017.
2. Initially ,the High Court of Kerala upheld the constitutional validity of the Act but deemed the provisional fixation of fees at Rs.5 lakh per annum ultra vires.This decision was prompted by challenges asserting procedural irregularities in fee-fixation process conducted by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee.
3. The High Court’s rulings emphasised the importance of ensuring that fees charged by educational institutions are non-exploitative and reasonable. It underscored the necessity for such fees to be based on thorough scrutiny of audited accounts detailing infrastructure costs, faculty salaries ,and maintenance expenses of the medical colleges.
4. Subsequent legal challenges were brought forward by the managements of private self-financing medical colleges, arguing for their institutional autonomy guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ,which grants the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
5. The Supreme Court intervened in the matter ,issuing directives to the Committee to expedite the fee fixation process within a strict timeline of three months. The Court emphasized adherence to statutory provisions and existing judicial precedents such as the P.A. Inamdar case and decisions from the Medical Dental College, stressing the need for transparency and fairness in fee determination.
6. This was highlights the delicate balance between institutional autonomy and regulatory oversight in the realm of professional education .It underscores the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and judicial guidliess to ensure that fee fixation processes are conducted fairly ,thereby protecting both the integrity of educational standards pursuing medical education in private colleges.
ISSUES RAISED
1. One of the main issues at hand is the constitutional validity of the Kerala Medical Education Act,2017, particularly its provisions related to fee fixation by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee .
2. This raises questions about whether these provisions align with constitutional principles and whether the Committee’s actions in setting provisional fees and subsequent re-evaluations comply with statutory requirements and judicial precedents.
3. Another critical issue is the procedural fairness and due process followed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee in determining the fees. This involves assessing whether the Committee’s decisions were based on thorough evaluations supported by audited accounts and other relevant documentation, ad mandated by law.
4.This case also examines the balance between institutional autonomy and regulatory actions of the Committee respect the institutional autonomy of private self-financing medical colleges ,as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ,while ensuring that fees are non exploitative and reasonable for students.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
1. Firstly ,the appellants argue vehemently for the constitutional validity of the KErala Medical Education Act ,2017. They contend that the Act is crafted to ensure equity and excellence in professional education by regulating fee structures in private medical colleges .They assert that the Act’s provisions, including those empowering the Admission ad Fee Regulatory Committee ,are necessary to prevent exploitation and ensure affordability for students pursuing medical education.
2. Secondly.the appellants emphasise procedural regularity and due process in the fee fixation process. They argue that the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee meticulously followed statutory guidelines and judicial precedents in determining provisional fees .They contend that all decisions were based on comprehensive evaluations supported by audited financial accounts and relevant documentation ,demonstrating adherence to legal standards.
3. Moreover,the appellants assert the necessity of balancing institutional autonomy with regulatory oversight. They argue that while private self-financing medical colleges have the right to administer institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ,this right must be exercised within the regulatory framework to prevent excessive fees and ensure fairness to students.They highlight the Committee’s role in scrutinising fee proposals to ensure they are non exploitative and reasonable ,aligning with statutory provisions and court directives.
4. Lastly, the appellants stress compliance with court directives and rulings .They argue that any decisions challenged were in response to court directions for reconsideration, demonstrating the Committee’s responsiveness to judicial oversight and commitment to legal compliance .
5. In essence ,the appellants’ contentions revolve around upholding the constitutionality of the Act, ensuring procedural fairness ,balancing institutional autonomy with regulatory responsibilities ,and demonstrating compliance with judicial directives in the fee fixation process for private medical colleges in Kerala.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- The respondents ,representing the private self-financing medical colleges ,would likely argue that the directions given by the Supreme Court reaffirm their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to administer educational institutions without undue interference .
- They would emphasise that while regulation is permissible ,any restrictions on fee fixation must be reasonable and in line with the principles laid down in Section 11 of the Kerala Medical Education Act ,2017.
- They would contend that the earlier fixation of fees for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 was done after due consideration by the Admission and Fee regulatory Committee ,as validated by the High Court’s judgement of 28.02.2019 ,which primarily remanded the matter due to procedural issues rather than substantive grounds .
- They might argue that the Committee should respect their autonomy in proposing fees ,ensuring they cover legitimate operational costs and allow for reasonable surplus ,which is essential for sustaining educational quality and development .
- Furthermore ,they could stress the logistical impracticality and financial burden on students caused by prolonged fee deliberations ,urguing for a swift resolution in line with the Supreme Court’s directive to finalise fee structures expeditiously .Thus ,the respondents would advocate for a fair and balanced approach that upholds institutional autonomy while adhering to regulatory frameworks aimed at preventing exploitative practices in fee fixation.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Najiya Neeramunda & Anr vs Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust & ors.addresses the issue of fee fixation for MBBS students in private self-financing medical colleges in Kerala. The dispute revolves around the authority and process of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (the Committee ) under the Kerala Medical Education Act ,2017. The High Court had earlier struck down provisional fee fixation by the Committee ,ruling it ultra vires the 2017 Act .The Committee’s power was contested ,with the High Court asserting that while the Committee could scrutinise fees to prevent exploitation ,it could not independently determine the appropriateness of expenses or fee proposals beyond ensuring non-expoitative charges. Following the High Court’s direction ,Committee re-fixed the fee for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 ,but this decision was challenged for procedural shortcomings .The High Court’s subsequent order on 19/05/2020 remanded the matter to the Committee,directing it to reconsider the fee proposals de novo , ensuring that they aligned with audited accounts or provisional accounts where audited ones were unavailable .The High court aimed to ensure a thorough and fair review process but faced appeals from both the State of Kerala and the students regarding the High Court’s directions and the delay in finalising fees. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court that the Committee’s earlier orders lacked proper consideration and directed a fresh review .It emphasized that while the Committee had the authority to regulate fees to prevent profiteering ,it must also adhere to the principles outlined in Section 11 of the 2017 Act. The Court criticised the High Court’s restriction on the Committee to only consider audited balance sheets or provisional accounts, asserting that the Committee should exercise its discretion within legislative framework. The Supreme Court directed the Committee to expedite its reconsideration of fee proposals ,including those for previous years ,ensuring a comprehensive review within three months .This approach aimed to balance institutional autonomy with regulatory oversight to achieve a fair and transparent fee structure for medical education in Kerala.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Najiya Neeramunda & Anr vs Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust & Ors. Primarily addresses the regulatory framework force fixation in private self-financing medical colleges in Kerala. The case scrutinised the authority of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee under the Kerala Medical Education Act,2017. The key issue was whether the Committee had the power to independently fix fees or merely review and ensure that proposed fees were non-exploitative .The High Court had initially restricted the Committee’s role to reviewing the reasonableness of the proposed fees without setting them itself .This view was based on the premise that the Committee’s function was to prevent exploitation rather than to substitute its judgement for that of the institutions .The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that the Committee’s prior orders suffered from procedural deficiencies ,including the lack of a proper quorum .The Court supported the High Court’s decision to remand the matter for a fresh review ,emphasizing the need for procedural fairness .The Supreme Court rejected the argument by the State of Kerala that the remand was unjustified and reinforced the necessity of a transparent and proper review process .The Court also addressed concerns from both students and private college managements .Students argued that any changes to the fee structure could impose financial burdens ,while the managements contended that their autonomy under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was being unduly restricted .The Supreme Court balanced these interests by confirming the Committee’s role in regulating fees but stressed that it must do so within the parameters set by law and not be limited by rigid criteria.
CONCLUSION
In Najiya Neermunda & Anr vs Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust & ors ,the Supreme Court dealt with the issue fee fixation for MBBS courses in Kerala’s private medical colleges .The Court addressed procedural flaws and substantive concerns in fee determination under the Kerala Medical Education Act ,2017. The Hight Court had remanded the case to the case to the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (the. Committee ) due to lack of quorum and improper review of fee proposals .The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directive for the Committee to reevaluate the fee structure for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 .It emphasized that while private institutions have autonomy inn setting fees ,this must be regulated to prevent exploitation and capitation fees. The Court criticised the High Court’s restriction on the Committee’s examination to audited accounts ,stating the Committee should have broader discretion .The Supreme Court directed the Committee to expedite the fee review process ,ensuring that fees are fair and non-exploitative ,while providing a reasonable opportunity for institutions to present their proposals .This decision aims to balance institutional autonomy with regulatory oversight.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Zil Sachela student of Kes JP Law college ,Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments