Introduction:

The Uttarakhand High Court, in the case Bindiya Khatri and Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, provided significant relief to students pursuing Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) courses across various Ayurvedic colleges in the state. The Court quashed the decision to apply the revised tuition fees, introduced in 2019, to students admitted in previous academic years. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, presiding over a batch of petitions, held that the tuition fee applicable to students is the one prevalent at the time of their admission, and any subsequent revision cannot impact them until the completion of their course. The petitions arose from a scenario where colleges attempted to apply increased fees retroactively, based on the 2019 determination by the Fee Regulatory Committee under the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (“the Act”).

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by Mr Abhijay Negi, Mr Vinod Tiwari, and Ms Snigdha Tiwari, argued that the Fee Regulatory Committee’s determination of tuition fees must operate prospectively. They emphasized that Section 4(12)-(14) of the Act explicitly states that the fees fixed by the committee apply only to students admitted in the same academic year of determination and remain unchanged for the entire duration of their course. Retroactive application of fees would amount to a violation of the statutory framework and create financial hardships for students and their families.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, represented by Mr Yogesh Chandra Tiwari for the State, Mr Sandeep Kothari for Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, and other legal counsels for the private colleges, contended that the revised fees were determined following the provisions of the Act and were essential to meet the operational costs of running the colleges. They argued that the decision to apply the revised fees to earlier batches was justified to ensure parity and cover the institutions’ financial needs.

Court’s Judgment:

After a detailed examination of the provisions under the Act, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, emphasizing that Section 4(14) of the Act explicitly prohibits the revision of fees for students already admitted until they complete their course. Justice Tiwari observed that the colleges’ actions were in direct contravention of this statutory provision and noted that the Fee Regulatory Committee’s determination applies only prospectively.

The Court remarked that the retrospective application of revised fees violates the principle of fairness and undermines the predictability of educational expenses, which students and their families consider while opting for a course. Justice Tiwari further pointed out that the colleges failed to justify their deviation from the statutory framework and dismissed their financial arguments as insufficient to override legal safeguards.

The Court directed the respondent colleges to issue No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and release the educational certificates of the petitioners upon payment of the original fees applicable at the time of their admission. It categorically stated that any attempt to demand enhanced fees from these students was unlawful and contrary to the Act’s provisions.