Introduction:

In a significant judgment safeguarding the academic and constitutional rights of students, the Telangana High Court ruled that educational institutions cannot withhold original academic certificates of students merely because tuition fees remain unpaid. The Court emphasised that original academic documents such as mark sheets and degree certificates are the property of the student and cannot be retained by universities as a means of coercing payment of outstanding dues. The ruling was delivered by Justice Surepalli Nanda while deciding a writ petition filed by Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini against the State of Telangana and other respondents, including Mahindra University. The petitioner had completed her B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering from Mahindra University in the year 2024. However, despite successfully completing her course and attending the convocation ceremony, she was issued only a provisional certificate while her original marks sheet and degree certificate were withheld by the university on the ground that certain tuition fee dues were allegedly pending. The petitioner argued that this action severely affected her ability to pursue higher education and employment opportunities, both within India and abroad. She also pointed out that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and was facing severe financial constraints that prevented her from immediately clearing the alleged dues. The matter became more complex when the petitioner approached the Telangana State Human Rights Commission, which recommended that the university release her original certificates and related documents. However, the university challenged this recommendation before the High Court and obtained a stay, resulting in the continued withholding of the petitioner’s documents. Aggrieved by this situation, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the university’s action as illegal and unconstitutional. After examining the legal framework governing educational institutions, the Court held that the retention of original certificates for recovery of fees was impermissible and directed the university to immediately return all the petitioner’s documents.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini, approached the High Court through her counsel Ms. T. Tejaswini Rathod, representing Advocate P. Sri Harsha Reddy, contending that the action of the university in withholding her original certificates was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner submitted that she had successfully completed her Bachelor of Technology degree in Computer Science and Engineering in 2024 from Mahindra University. At the convocation ceremony held on 2 August 2024, she expected to receive all her academic documents including the original marks sheet and degree certificate. However, the university issued only a provisional certificate and refused to release the original documents on the ground that certain tuition fee dues were pending. According to the petitioner, this decision caused severe prejudice to her academic and professional prospects. She explained that original certificates are essential for applying to higher education institutions, seeking employment opportunities, and completing various formalities related to career advancement. The petitioner further argued that by withholding her original documents, the university effectively prevented her from pursuing these opportunities and placed her future in uncertainty. The petitioner also highlighted her socio-economic background and submitted that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and was facing serious financial difficulties. Due to these financial constraints, she was unable to immediately clear the alleged fee dues. However, she maintained that the university could not take advantage of her financial vulnerability by withholding documents that rightfully belonged to her. According to the petitioner, the act of retaining her certificates amounted to coercion and was contrary to the principles of fairness and justice. The petitioner further submitted that she had initially approached the Telangana State Human Rights Commission seeking relief. After examining the matter, the Commission issued proceedings dated 3 November 2025 directing the university to release the petitioner’s original certificates and issue the Transfer Certificate, Study Certificate, and Conduct Certificate within three days. However, the university challenged this direction before the High Court and obtained a stay order, resulting in the continued withholding of the petitioner’s documents. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a declaration that the university’s action was illegal and unconstitutional. She argued that the withholding of her certificates violated her fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She also relied upon various regulatory guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and the Telangana Council of Higher Education, which prohibit educational institutions from retaining original certificates deposited by students at the time of admission. On these grounds, the petitioner requested the Court to direct the university to immediately return all her original certificates.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents in the case included the State of Telangana, certain government authorities, and the university from which the petitioner had completed her degree. While the Government Pleader for Higher Education represented the State authorities, no one appeared on behalf of the university during the final hearing of the matter. Nevertheless, the position of the university, as reflected in earlier proceedings, was that the petitioner had outstanding fee dues which had not been cleared despite repeated reminders. According to the university, it had the authority to retain the original certificates of students until all financial obligations were fulfilled. The university maintained that educational institutions rely on tuition fees as a primary source of funding and therefore must ensure that students comply with their financial commitments. The respondents also argued that the petitioner had voluntarily enrolled in the university and was fully aware of the financial obligations associated with the course. Therefore, according to them, the petitioner could not evade payment of dues while simultaneously demanding the release of her academic certificates. The university further contended that the retention of certificates served as a practical mechanism for ensuring that students cleared their outstanding fees before leaving the institution. In this context, the respondents challenged the recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission and obtained a stay from the High Court. They argued that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that interfered with the administrative autonomy of the university.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After examining the submissions made by the petitioner and the relevant legal framework, the Telangana High Court delivered a detailed judgment addressing the legality of withholding students’ original certificates. Justice Surepalli Nanda began by emphasising that academic certificates such as mark sheets and degree certificates are the personal property of the student. Once these documents are issued by the educational institution, the institution cannot claim any lien over them. The Court categorically observed that withholding such documents as a means of recovering unpaid fees is not legally permissible. The Court further noted that the action of the university directly interfered with the petitioner’s ability to pursue higher education and employment opportunities. Such interference, according to the Court, had serious implications for the petitioner’s right to livelihood and personal development. The Court also examined the regulatory framework governing higher education institutions in India. It referred to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, including the UGC (Grievance Redressal of Students) Regulations, 2018 and earlier guidelines dated 23 April 2007. These regulations clearly prohibit universities and colleges from retaining original certificates submitted by students during admission. The Court observed that these guidelines were issued to prevent educational institutions from adopting coercive practices against students. In addition to the UGC guidelines, the Court considered a communication issued by the Telangana State Council of Higher Education dated 5 August 2024. This communication specifically directed universities and affiliated colleges not to withhold original certificates of students on the ground that fee reimbursement from the government had not been received. The Court observed that the university’s action was directly contrary to these instructions. The Court also relied upon several judicial precedents from various High Courts which consistently held that educational institutions cannot retain academic certificates as leverage to recover financial dues. According to the Court, if any fees remain unpaid, the institution has the option of initiating appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court for recovery of the amount. However, such financial disputes cannot justify the withholding of documents that belong to the student. The Court further observed that allowing educational institutions to retain certificates would effectively enable them to exercise coercive power over students and restrict their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere. Such practices would undermine the principles of fairness and equality guaranteed by the Constitution. In light of these findings, the Court held that the university’s action was illegal and contrary to the regulatory guidelines governing educational institutions. Accordingly, the Court directed the university to immediately release all the petitioner’s original certificates, including her mark sheets and degree certificate.