Prerna Gala
Published on: 06 September 2022 at 19:21 IST
The Supreme Court issued notice to National Medical Commission (NMC) challenging the decision stipulating that the fee for 50% of seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities should be at equal footing regarding fee for the government medical colleges in that State and Union Territory.
In accordance with the office memorandum (OM) published by the NMC on February 3, 2022, 50% of the seats in Private Medical Colleges “should be at par with the fee in the Government Medical Colleges of a particular State.”
The petition has been filed by AHSI Association of Health Sciences Institutes, submitted in their plea that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in its rulings that the method for determining fees will be subject to taking into account a number of criteria, including the facilities offered by the college, the infrastructure, the age of the investment made, expansion plans, etc.
The matter is being heard by two-judge panel comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli gave the NMC two weeks time period to file a counter-affidavit in the case. The bench questioned whether the petitioner is going to challenge only the office memorandum through this petition.
In response, the petitioners’ attorney stated that the stance had already been upheld in the case of TMA Pai and numerous other verdicts. Also relied on Kerala HC order that the decision of NMC will not be applicable in the State of Kerala.
The petitioners stated the operation of the NMC direction is pan India, therefore the Court needs to hear this matter on urgent basis as the admission process is going to start soon.
However, the Bench was not satisfied with the argument stating the admission process will take longer time as it is tedious process.
The petition highlighted that as the impugned OM is arbitrary and against the law, it has no existence in the eyes of law. It is contrary to the declarations made by this Hon’ble Court prohibiting any such stipulations which have been sought to be imposed by Respondent on the fundamental rights guaranteed to the private unaided educational institutions such as the Petitioner, under Part III of the Constitution of India.
The rules outlined in the contested OM go beyond the authority granted to the NMC and have no legal standing. According to the petition, the Fee Fixation Committee in each state, which is led by a retired High Court judge, is the only entity with the jurisdiction to set the rates for medical colleges.
Furthermore it was submitted that, “….provisions of NMC Act, including Section 10(1)(i) thereof, NMC has not been empowered to fix the fee or fix any such stipulation having the mandatory effect of reintroducing the features of the Unni Krishnan Scheme [where 50% of the students are to be charged only the Government fee, which was held to be unconstitutional] and to not to allow the unaided private institutions to recover the fee fixed by Fee Committees from all the students in a uniform manner so as to recover its expenditure and also a reasonable profit / surplus for its expansion.”
The petitioner argues that private, unaided colleges should be allowed to set the annual cost they would charge students. The Fee Committee will monitor this fixation to ensure there is no profiteering and that the fee collected allows the private unaided institutions to cover their costs and make a suitable profit or surplus for future growth.
The plea emphasized on the right of each private unaided institution to recover all its expenditure and reasonbale surplus, hence no permission to the State or any of its agency to venture into imposing any kind of restrictions or prohibition.
“..Each institution is entitled to recover annual fee on that basis from each of the students admitted in the college [other than the NRI seats]. The State cannot interfere in any manner whatsoever in this behalf.”