NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges cannot be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly Rs 19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are self-financing. “Annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private college and a govt one,” Justice Nagarathna said.Justice Nagarathna said, “The annual tuition fee can’t be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it.” “Private colleges are also contributing to the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees,” she further said. The petitioner, whose parents in Rajasthan have an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and Rs 19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means.His counsel Rishabh Sancheti informed the bench that students in EWS category, who scored less marks than him, were allotted EWS quota seats where candidates pay fee for MBBS courses at govt fixed rate which is less than the general category seats in private colleges.The counsel further said the HC failed to appreciate that non-provisioning of 10% seats for EWS category students in MBBS courses by Rajasthan govt breached the constitutional mandate and permitted extortion of Rs 19 to 25 lakh annual tuition fee from poor families. The petitioner also challenged the arbitrary allotment of a general category seat instead of an EWS quota seat.Sancheti said that states like West Bengal and Maharashtra have implemented the 10% EWS quota even in private colleges. “We do not see any reason to interfere with the HC order,” the bench said and dismissed the petition while asking the student to avail of scholarships to pursue his studies. However, knowing the importance of the issue, it said the question of law involved in the case is kept open for adjudication in a future appropriate case.Sancheti said that non-implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation as envisaged under Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having applied in EWS category.
