‘The marginalised hit worse’: Calcutta High Court orders refund for engineering students hit by mid-session fee hike

The marginalised affected more

• Seen from the prism of the students, who ultimately have to bear the brunt of enhanced fees, if the rules of the game are changed after commencement of the same, students who are sponsored by their families by scraping together resources and/or taking loans might find it impossible to carry on with their education in their chosen college.
• Students coming from marginalised backgrounds would take the worst hit in such a scenario.
• Worse still, even if such a student, incapable of meeting the revised fees, seeks to revert to a college charging less fees and of inferior quality, it might be altogether impossible to find such an alternative mid-session.

• Most colleges worth their mettle are already supposed to be filled up after the counselling and admission processes are over, said the Calcutta High Court.
• The choice of college is not determined merely by the merits of the successful students or their aspirations and/or the quality of the college but also the financial constraints of the students.
• Even if eligible for a better college, the students may select a comparatively less-reputed college only on the yardstick of financial constraints, said the Calcutta High Court.
• Thus, the financial capacity of the student’s family plays a pivotal role in the selection of college.
• The writ court is not merely a court of law but primarily a court of equity, having wings which are not available to a court determining disputes within the constraints of pure procedural law.
• Hence, the element of choice of the students has to be recognised by the writ court to be governed by their financial capacity, apart from merits.

The fee structure was a composite whole, not divisible into parts for mid-course alteration, said the Calcutta High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

3 appeals, 1 common grievance

• The case stemmed from three connected appeals filed by students of Dr B C Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, who had enrolled in BTech courses for the 2023–2027 academic session.
• All three appeals challenged a state notification dated October 16, 2023, which revised the fee structure for self-financing professional colleges across West Bengal.
• The students argued that the hike introduced – after admissions had concluded and classes had begun – was arbitrary and financially crippling.
• The high court framed three central questions for determination:

1. Whether the fee revision violated the All India Council for Technical Education’s (AICTE) regulations.
2. Whether the original fee structure was binding for the entire course.
3. Whether the revised fees could apply to already admitted students.

Admission timeline: Crucial factor

• The Calcutta High Court placed significant emphasis on the timeline of events.
• West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (WBJEE) exam held on April 30, 2023; results declared on May 26, 2023.
• Centralised counselling conducted between July and August 2023.
• Students took admission between July 31 and September 16, 2023.
• Classes commenced in September 2023.
• Fee revision notification issued only on October 16, 2023.
• This sequence, the court noted, clearly showed that students had already committed to their colleges, financially and academically, before any fee revision was introduced.

‘Rules of game’ changed midway: Students

• Senior advocate Pratik Dhar, along with advocates Sarwar Jahan and Shamim Ul Bari, appearing for the students, argued that the fee structure published at the time of admission covered the entire course (2023–2027) as a consolidated block.
• The counsel submitted that the students made informed choices based on affordability, often compromising on better-ranked colleges due to financial constraints.
• Any subsequent increase would amount to changing the “rules of the game” after it had already begun, the counsel said.
• The counsel informed the court that the petitioners also relied on AICTE’s 1994 Regulations, particularly Regulation 7(7), to argue that fee structures must be declared in advance and cannot be altered mid-course.

State, colleges: Expert panel cleared hike

• Advocate Tanoy Chakraborty and others, appearing for the private colleges, and advocate Tapati Samanta, appearing for the state, submitted that the fee revision was not arbitrary but based on recommendations of a duly constituted expert committee.
• Stakeholders, including institutions, were consulted before the revision.
• Rising operational costs, faculty salaries, infrastructure, and maintenance necessitated the increase.
• A significant number of students had already paid the revised fees, indicating acceptance.
• They further argued that there was no explicit legal bar on mid-session implementation of revised fees.

Original fee structure: Binding ‘whole’

• The court held that the original fee structure published before admissions was intended as a complete and integrated package for the entire course, even though payments were scheduled semester-wise.
• “The structure was a composite whole, not divisible into parts for mid-course alteration,” the court observed.
• Although the fee document included a clause stating that fees were subject to change “from time to time,” the court ruled that such a clause could not justify arbitrary mid-session hikes affecting already admitted students.

Relief granted: Refund or adjustment

• Allowing the appeals, the court issued clear directions.
• Revised fees cannot be charged from students admitted before October 16, 2023.
• Any excess amount already collected must be refunded or adjusted against future fees.
• Refunds must be processed within a stipulated timeframe.
• The court also clarified that payments made by students did not amount to voluntary acceptance, noting they were often made under pressure to avoid academic disruption.

No stay despite plea by college

• In a post-judgment development, the college sought a stay on the ruling.
• The court, however, refused, observing that adequate time had already been granted for compliance.
• The future of students could not be jeopardised further.