Joshi twisted SC verdict to justify his IIM fee-good

Murli Manohar Joshi has quoted the Supreme Court out of context in his controversial order reducing the fees in the six Indian Institutes of...

Murli Manohar Joshi has quoted the Supreme Court out of context in his controversial order reducing the fees in the six Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs).

The two-page order issued by the HRD Ministry on February 5 seeks to justify the 80 per cent fee cut by repeatedly citing the 11-judge bench verdict of 2002 in the T M A Pai case.

And the solitary ‘‘observation’’ it quotes from the judgment is: ‘‘An educational institution cannot charge such a fee as is not required for the purpose of furthering the object.’’

This is misleading.

Story continues below this ad

For, the apex court made that observation purely to explain why it was reaffirming in 2002 the ban it had imposed nine years earlier on private professional colleges from charging capitation fee.

The lines that appear in the judgment immediately after the quoted portion give a clear indication of its import:

‘‘To put it differently, in the establishment of an educational institution, the object should not be to make a profit, inasmuch as education is essentially charitable in nature.

‘‘There can, however, be a reasonable revenue surplus, which may be generated by the educational institution for the purpose of development of education and expansion of the institution.’’

Story continues below this ad

	PIL in SC says how Govt step is serious reforms rollback

			A PIL seeking quashing of the IIM fee cut order was filed in the SC on Tuesday by lawyer Sandeep Parekh, visiting faculty at IIM Ahmedabad. He argues: • IIMs spend about Rs 4 lakh per student, fee is just Rs 1.5 lakh. • To reduce financial burden, Centre set up Kurien Committee in 1992. • This recommended an upward revision of fee structure to reduce the dependence of the IIMs on govt grants. • To safeguard interests of students from economically weaker sections, the panel recommended scholarships and educational loans. • These were accepted by the Govt and fees raised Story continues below this ad • HRD cites Rao Committee. Rao says his recommendations don’t concern IIMs/IITs.

Thus, if the portion quoted by Joshi is applied as he did to IIMs, it actually means that, far from having to reduce their annual fees from Rs 1.50 lakh to Rs 30,000, they are entitled to hike their charges to the extent of earning ‘‘a reasonable revenue surplus.’’

In his recent press statements, the director of IIM Ahmedabad, Bakul Dholakia, estimated that the institute spends at least Rs 3 lakh per annum on each student.

This means that going by the principle of the Pai ruling, Joshi should in fact let the IIMs hike their fees so that they can earn ‘‘a reasonable revenue surplus.’’

Story continues below this ad

Given the great demand for IIM graduates in the global job market, and the easy availability of student loans, IIM students will have little difficulty in paying a fee that will make the institute financially independent.

This will be in tune not only with the policy of economic reforms but also with the very judgment invoked by Joshi.

Consider the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding the one from which Joshi made his selective quotation.

‘‘One cannot lose sight of the fact that providing good amenities to the students in the form of competent teaching faculty and other infrastructure costs money. It has, therefore, to be left to the institution, if it chooses not to seek any aid from the government, to determine the scale of fee that it can charge from the students.’’

Story continues below this ad

Moreover, Joshi’s decision to slash the fees reverses a policy adopted by the Government in 1992 to reduce gradually the subsidy given to the IIMs. It was on account of the reduction in government funds that the IIMs increased their fees proportionately to the current level Rs 1.50 lakh.