Good Morning: 2026

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Supreme Court dismisses plea raising concerns that EWS candidates can't afford private medical college fees

The Court refused to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court ruling that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not entitle candidates to subsidised fees in private medical colleges.

Supreme Court

Debayan Roy

Published on:

24 Jun 2026, 1:37 pm

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning how the ₹8 lakh income ceiling for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates could be reconciled with the high fees demanded by private medical colleges, which could run up to ₹25 lakh annually [Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors].

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a Rajasthan High Court ruling, which had found the fee structure fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee to be legally valid.

During the hearing today, Justice Nagarathna also observed that private colleges cannot be expected to offer its courses at subsidised fees like government colleges.

“You cannot say private educational institutions shall charge the same as government institution. That cannot be. One person cannot come and say that private is exorbitant, so make it like government. These are self-financing institutes. For government ones...they get grant (subsidies) from the State. There is a vital difference,” the judge observed.

Justice BV Nagarathna & Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Referring to established precedent, Justice Nagarathna added,

“Please see TMA Pai (caselaw). Capitation fee is banned...but that does not mean general college fees cannot be taken.”

The Court also cautioned against undermining the role of private institutions in medical education.

“Assistance of private medical colleges to the State in the field of medical education will stop then...We need doctors,” said Justice Nagarathna.

On the issue of affordability when it comes to private college fee structures, she remarked,

“If you are unable to pay...get scholarship...subvention...”

The plea had been filed by an EWS candidate who submitted that tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan range between ₹18.9 lakh and ₹25 lakh per year. This, he argued, effectively renders the EWS quota ineffective in practice, as candidates within the ₹8 lakh income bracket cannot realistically afford such education.

The Rajasthan High Court had rejected this contention, noting that the fee structure had been fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.

It had held that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not create any entitlement to subsidised or differential fees in private colleges.

The High Court had further observed that the absence of any statutory provision mandating fee concessions meant that high fees, by themselves, could not be treated as a denial of EWS reservation, even if they limited practical access for eligible candidates.

Today the Supreme Court refused to interfere with this ruling.

“We don't find reason to intervene with the High Court order. Dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open," the top court said.

We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees

Court upholds Rajasthan HC order, refuses directions on fee regulation despite concerns over affordability for EWS candidates.

Petitioner argued annual fees of up to ₹25 lakh undermine EWS reservation benefits; court says issue falls within regulators’ domain.(File Photo | ANI)

Suchitra Kalyan Mohanty

Updated on:

25 Jun 2026, 7:56 am

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the fee structure of the private medical colleges in Rajasthan, observing that “we need doctors in this country” while dismissing a petition that called the charges exorbitant.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Rajasthan High Court order. The HC had earlier rejected a plea by a medical aspirant claiming annual tuition fees in private colleges range from `18.90 lakh to `25 lakh, which, he said, was inconsistent with the `8 lakh income cap for EWS reservation.

“We need doctors in this country,” said the top court while refusing to entertain a plea which alleged that the fee structure in private medical colleges in Rajasthan was exorbitant.

The counsel argued that high fees made MBBS unaffordable for EWS candidates despite quotas and urged the court to direct the state and Centre to cap fees at affordable levels.

The bench, however, declined to step in and refused to pass any order on the plea. “Medical education requires infrastructure, faculty, and equipment. Fee fixation is a policy decision for regulators,” it said while dismissing the plea.

Noting that fee regulation falls within the domain of the state authorities and bodies like the Medical Council, the SC clarified that judicial interference is warranted only if there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness, which was not shown here in this present case. “One person cannot say that it is exorbitant in private institutions and make it on par with government institutions,” the bench observed.

The bench observed that one has the option to avail a scholarship. “We need doctors in this country,” it said. “We don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. The special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open,” the bench said.

With this, the SC upheld the High Court’s order. No directions were issued to the Centre, Rajasthan government, or MCI/NMC on fee caps.

The petitioner is a general category candidate, who possesses an EWS certificate. He felt aggrieved that the counseling board allocated him a seat in a private college despite he giving preference for 73 colleges.

He argued that EWS students were charged the same fee as other general category students, thus making medical education unaffordable to the EWS students. He also relied on a National Medical Commission notice, which stated that 50 per cent of seats in private colleges should be at par with government colleges.

NEWS TODAY 25.06.2026

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 25.06.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges can not 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.

The bench 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 ₹19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted that the private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are selffinancing.

“The annual tuition fee cannot be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In the self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas the govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it”, said Justice Nagarathna.

“The private colleges are also contributing in 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, the courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees”, she said.

The petitioner whose parents have an annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said that he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and that ₹19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means. His counsel said, “Non implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation 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 validly applied in EWS category.

Pvt colleges, deemed univs launch digi regn drives ahead of NEET counselling

Pvt colleges, deemed univs launch digi regn drives ahead of NEET counselling

Experts warn Of Backdoor Admissions, Fee Deals

Pushpa.Narayan@timesofindia.com 25.06.2026

Chennai : Weeks before NEET counselling for undergraduate medical admissions begins, private medical colleges and deemed universities have quietly launched digital registration portals for MBBS aspirants — a practice academicians and student counsellors say has no legal standing and could pave the way for backdoor admissions and under-the-table fee arrangements.

The registrations, once conducted discreetly on campuses, have now moved online. Under the existing regulatory framework, admissions to MBBS seats are governed exclusively by state and central counselling committees. After NEET-UG results are declared, the Medical Counselling Committee under the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi, allots candidates to central institutions, deemed universities and 15% of state medical college seats, based on merit in NEET, reservation norms and student preference.

State committees allot candidates to the remaining 85% of govt seats and all seats in self-financing and state private colleges. Colleges are barred from directly admitting students. Yet, the portals ask prospective candidates to submit personal details — name, address, mobile number, NEET admit card number and scores. “Some parents assume early registration will help their children secure seats,” said student counsellor Manickavel Arumugam. “Colleges then meet parents, offer financial incentives such as fee discount of up tos 5 lakh a year and ask them to pay a part of the fee in advance.

They also help them fill admission forms in ways that could steer allotments toward the college," he said. These arrangements can affect merit, he said.

A parent said a college official promised a discount of up to 5 lakh a year — on annual fees that already run as high as 30 lakh — in exchange for early registration. “I decided to pay and pick the seat in the first round of counselling. But my son's teacher warned me I could lose the money,” said Varadharajan S, who works for an IT firm.