Professional Course Fees Cannot Be Revised Midstream: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that fees for self-financing professional courses cannot be revised midstream for students already admitted to the course, stressing that students and their families must have certainty about the financial liability they undertake.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that determination of fees for professional education involves balancing the interests of students in certainty and predictability with the interests of self-financing higher education institutions (HEIs) in securing adequate resources to provide quality education.

Why must professional course fees be notified before admission?

Court said that, as a matter of good governance and fair regulation, the fee payable for the entire duration of a professional course should ordinarily be determined and notified before the commencement of the admission process.

"A student entering a four-or five-year professional programme should ordinarily know, at the very threshold, the financial liability that they or their family is undertaking," the Bench said.

It added that advance determination of fees promotes transparency, enables informed choice and facilitates financial planning. However, this does not mean that the fee structure can never be adjusted, Court clarified.

"There must be certainty about the fee liability; variation in the fee payable during the subsistence of the course is permissible only in exceptional instances such as unforeseen increase in the expenditure," the Bench held.

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Dr B C Roy Engineering College against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court concerning midstream revision of fees for professional courses.

Upholding the high court's conclusion that the fees determined at the commencement of the course could not be varied midstream, the Bench, however, held that the high court's application of the principles of equity and estoppel against the college on the basis of its admission brochure was not sustainable in law.

What did the AICTE regulations provide?

Court pointed out that Regulation 7 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 contemplated a structured fee fixation process by a State Level Committee, with periodic reviews at fixed intervals.

"Fee revisions are based on audited recurring expenditure figures and projected requirements, and professional colleges must intimate the fees chargeable for the entire course before the academic year commences," Court said.

The Bench concluded that fee revisions must therefore follow a structured process and be notified before admissions begin.

It also referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002) and P A Inamdar v State of Maharashtra (2005), observing that fee fixation committees constituted to determine the appropriate fee payable by professional institutions must be given institutional status.

"They are virtually the regulatory bodies for determining the appropriate fee and must therefore perform their duties with efficiency, expertise and integrity. As they perform an important public function, their actions are subject to review," the Bench said.

Fee fixation committees must function efficiently

Court stressed that fee fixation committees constituted under statutory frameworks perform important public functions and are therefore subject to judicial review.

"Courts must ensure these bodies operate with institutional efficiency and expertise to prevent unnecessary litigation and maintain a predictable regulatory environment," the Bench said.

Court also referred to the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, which, it said, articulates a commitment against arbitrariness in increases in fees for professional courses and contains a policy position against unjustified fee increases during a student's period of enrolment.

In the present case, the fee for professional courses in West Bengal had last been revised in the 2016-17 academic year. The fee fixation committee and the State Government failed to complete the revision exercise in time for students enrolled in the 2023-27 courses.

A fresh fee revision was undertaken after seven years through a notification dated October 16, 2023. The appellant college adopted the revised fee on December 15, 2023, after completion of the first semester.

The Bench observed that the college "cannot be blamed for its anxiety in implementing the revised fee structure" after the first semester.

However, it said the problem arising from the midstream implementation could have been avoided had the State Government issued the October 16, 2023 notification before the commencement of the 2023-24 academic session.

"We can take judicial notice of the fact that functioning of the fee fixation committees as of now and the State's action on their recommendations have often not been up to the mark. The instant case demonstrates such one case," the Bench observed.

Court ultimately held that the regulatory regime under the Supreme Court's judgments, AICTE Regulations and NEP 2020, coupled with the principle of certainty, requires authorities to notify the fee payable for the entire course before a student takes admission.

Case Title: Dr B C Roy Engineering College & Anr Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

Date of Judgment: October 14, 2026