Dismissing a plea by a General category Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidate challenging the high fees charged by private medical colleges in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court Wednesday remarked that private medical colleges will close down if forced to take students at fee on par with government colleges.
“Capitation fee is banned. But that doesn’t mean you have to take it as per government college rate… Otherwise all these private institutions, their assistance to the State in the matter of medical education will become nil. They will all close down and diversify. We need doctors in this country,” Justice B V Nagarathna, presiding over a two-judge bench, remarked.
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing an appeal by a General category student from Rajasthan who had taken the NEET-UG 2025 exam. The plea questioned the logic of private colleges charging fees much above the EWS income limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum.
Belonging to the EWS category, he did not opt for private medical colleges in the first two rounds of counselling as the fee was high, ranging from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 25 lakh.
His plea, filed through Advocates T Hari Hara Sudhan and Armaan Arora, submitted that in the third round too, he was allotted an unreserved category seat in a private medical college, despite securing an interim order from the Rajasthan High Court. The single-judge bench of the High Court had said if he is provisionally allotted admission in a private medical college, he shall not be compelled to pay any amount in excess of the fee prescribed for government medical colleges in the state.
The single-judge bench, however, went on to dismiss his plea and this was upheld by a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court on May 5, 2025, observing that EWS reservation is confined only to the stage of admission and does not carry any obligation to provide a concessional fee structure to EWS candidates; and that the fee structure fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee could not be interfered with since the original fee determination order of October 26, 2022, was not specifically challenged.
Hearing his appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court order, Justice Nagarathna said: “…this one person, he cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution, make it on par with the government institution.” She added, “…they are self-financing institutions. As far as government colleges are concerned, the government gives the grants.”
Advocate Rishabh Sancheti, appearing for the student, said it was the National Medical Commission (NMC) which said so. He referred to section 10 (i) of the NMC Act, 2019, which says the commission shall among others “frame guidelines for determination of fees and all other charges in respect of fifty per cent of seats in private medical institutions and deemed to be universities which are governed under the provisions of this Act”.
He also cited an office memorandum dated February 3, 2022, issued by the NMC, recommending that the fee of 50 per cent seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities should be at par with government medical colleges of the relevant state.
The division bench of the Rajasthan High Court had earlier pointed out in its May 2025 judgment that the said NMC office memorandum was merely recommendatory and not binding.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Bagchi, too, pointed out that the NMC’s memorandum is recommendatory. “Your SLP itself says Rajasthan has not adopted this office memorandum but it has been adopted by the state of Maharashtra. That itself shows that it was subject to the approval of the government concerned.”
The counsel disagreed that the memorandum is recommendatory, and said it has the statutory backing of the NMC Act.
Justice Nagarathna however said, “…there is a vital difference. What does TMA Pai [2002 judgment in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka case] say?…Self-financing institutions means what? Capitation fee is banned. But that doesn’t mean you have to take it as per government college rate.”
The counsel said that the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai judgment said, “…while giving them leeway to earn also said don’t profiteer. Here what they are doing is they have the benefit of seat increase. Then they convert all of them to general seats.”
Justice Nagarathna said treating them at par with government colleges may lead to the private colleges shutting down as they may find it unviable. “Otherwise, all these private institutions, their assistance to the State in the matter of medical education will become nil. They will all close down and diversify. We need doctors in this country,” the judge remarked.
The counsel pointed out that it was being followed in other states. “It can’t be that in West Bengal, Maharashtra and other states, there is no problem. Only in Rajasthan it is as high as Rs 25 lakhs,” he submitted.
Justice Nagarathna however pointed out that “in Karnataka, it’s more. It’s in crores.”
To this, the counsel said, “But Karnataka is also giving benefit to EWS. The difference between haves and have nots will have to be constitutionally maintained.”
Justice Nagarathna remarked that “those who have will pay”.
The Counsel said, “I am unable to pay which is why I am before Your Lordships”.
Justice Nagarathna however said he should try for some scholarship. “That is different. Get scholarship, or subvention, get into a government college…”
The bench ultimately went on to dismiss the plea and said, “High Court has passed an order. We don’t find any reason to interfere with the order.”
Supreme Court on private medical college fees held that self-financing institutions cannot be compelled to charge fees on par with government colleges. (File) 
Share
