Summary
A society running an unaided law college and nursing college at Indore, both recognised minority educational institutions, was called upon by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee under the Madhya Pradesh Act of 2007 to submit a fee proposal and was told the Committee would fix its fees. The society's appeal failed and the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed its petition to declare Sections 4 and 9 of the Act ultra vires. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by clarifying that the Constitution Bench in Modern Dental College had upheld the Act only as read down: the institution itself proposes its fee on the Section 9(1) parameters and the Committee merely reviews it to ensure there is no profiteering or capitation fee; the Committee cannot fix fees unilaterally, nor can a minority institution claim complete immunity from that regulatory review.
Issues
- Whether a minority educational institution in Madhya Pradesh is required to have its fees fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee under the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007, and what is the scope of the Committee's power after Modern Dental College.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4(1), 4(8) and 9, Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007As read down and upheld in Modern Dental College, these provisions empower the Committee only to satisfy itself, after hearing the institution, that the fee proposed by the institution on the Section 9(1) factors does not amount to profiteering or commercialisation; the power is regulatory and does not take away the institution's right to fix its own fee. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Article 30(1), Constitution of IndiaFollowing T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar, devising a reasonable fee structure is part of the right to establish and administer an institution, but regulation to prevent profiteering and capitation fee is permissible even for unaided minority institutions, and under Sk. Md. Rafique laws of the land apply equally to majority and minority institutions. (¶¶ 7, 11, 12)
Held
- The validity of the 2007 Act is no longer open to challenge; the Constitution Bench accepted the Madhya Pradesh High Court's reading that the Committee gives final approval to the fee proposed by the institution after verifying that it is based on the Section 9(1) factors and involves no profiteering, so the Committee exercises only a power of regulation over the fee proposed by the institution. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The Committee's stand that it would itself fix the fees of minority institutions cannot be countenanced, but equally the society cannot claim exemption from any interference; it must submit its proposed fees for its professional courses to the Committee for review and regulation under Section 9 in accordance with the principles laid down. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal disposed of with the clarification that the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee cannot unilaterally fix the appellant society's fees but the society must submit its proposed fees for review and regulation under Section 9 of the 2007 Act; parties to bear their own costs.