The EWS candidate student desires a reduction in the hefty fees charged by private medical institutions in Rajasthan. The apex court supported the ruling of the Rajasthan HC saying, if private colleges charge prices at par with government college, they will shut down.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by a General category Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidate challenging the high fees charged by private medical colleges in Rajasthan and said that private medical colleges will be shut down if they are forced to admit students at the fee structure of government colleges.
Capitation fees are forbidden. But it doesn’t imply you have to take it at government college rate… Otherwise these private institutions would not give any help to the State in the issue of medical education. They will all shut down and diversify. Justice B V Nagarathna, who headed the two-judge panel, said, “We need doctors in this country.”
The court, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a petition filed by a General category student of Rajasthan who had appeared for the NEET-UG 2025 test. In the case, the rationale for private institutions charging fees well beyond the EWS income cap of Rs 8 lakh a year was challenged.
As he belonged to the EWS group, in the first two rounds of counselling, he did not choose private medical institutions due to the expensive cost structure, ranging from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 25 lakh.
Through Advocates T Hari Hara Sudhan and Armaan Arora, in his appeal, it was contended that despite getting an interim order from Rajasthan High Court, he was awarded an unreserved category seat in a medical college in the private sector, in the third round also.
The single judge bench of the High Court had held that if he is provisionally admitted to a private medical college, he should not be forced to pay anything more than the sum set for the government medical institutions in the state.
However, his plea was rejected by a single judge bench and was upheld by a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court on May 5, 2025, citing that EWS reservation is only applicable to the admission stage and there is no obligation to provide a concessional fee structure to EWS candidates; and the fee structure determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee could not be interfered with as the original fee determination order of October 26, 2022, was not specifically challenged.
While hearing his appeal against the Rajasthan High Court judgement, Justice Nagarathna observed, “…this one person he cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution, make it on par with the government institution.” She said, “…they are institutions with independent financing. “In case of government colleges the grants are given by the government.
Rishabh Sancheti, advocate representing the student, stated it was the National Medical Commission (NMC) who said so. He cited section 10 (i) of the NMC Act, 2019 which states that 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 provision of this Act”.
He further mentioned an office memorandum of NMC dated February 3, 2022 which says the charge of 50 per cent seats in private medical schools and deemed universities shall be same as government medical institutions of the concerned state.
Earlier, in its May 25, 2025 judgement, the division bench of the Rajasthan High Court had noted that the mentioned NMC office memorandum was just recommendatory and not obligatory.
In its May 2025 judgement, the division bench of the Rajasthan High Court had earlier observed that the mentioned NMC office memorandum was only recommendatory and not obligatory.
However, Justice Nagarathna said, “In Karnataka, it is more. It is in a crore.
“But, Karnataka is also giving benefit to EWS.” The attorney stated. “The difference between haves and have nots will have to be constitutionally kept.”
Justice Nagarathna said “those who have will pay”.
Counsel stated “I am unable to pay therefore I am before Your Lordships” .
However Justice Nagarathna stated he should apply for any scholarship. That’s another story. “Get a scholarship or subvention, get admission in a government college…”
The bench finally dismissed the plea and observed, “High Court has passed an order. We see no cause to tamper with the order.
The division bench of the Rajasthan High Court in its judgement of May 2025 had earlier observed that the stated NMC office memorandum was simply recommendatory and not obligatory.
Justice Bagchi also said the NMC’s memorandum is recommendatory at the Supreme Court hearing. In your SLP itself it is said that this office memorandum is not adopted by Rajasthan rather it is adopted by the state of Maharashtra. “That in itself proves that it was subject to the approval of the government concerned.”
The attorney contended that the memorandum is recommendatory and stated it had the statutory authority of NMC Act.
But, Justice Nagarathna stated, “…there is a crucial difference. What is the TMA Pai [T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka lawsuit 2002 judgement] ruling?…What do you mean by self-financing institutions? No capitation fees allowed. But it doesn’t mean you have to take it at the government college rate.”
Justice Nagarathna nevertheless noted that “more in Karnataka. It is in a crore.
“But, Karnataka is also giving benefit to EWS.” The attorney stated. “The difference between haves and have nots will have to be constitutionally kept.”
Justice Nagarathna said “those who have will pay”.
Counsel stated “I am unable to pay therefore I am before Your Lordships” .
However Justice Nagarathna stated he should apply for any scholarship. That’s another story. “Get a scholarship or subvention, get admission in a government college…”
The bench finally dismissed the plea stating, “The High Court has passed an order. We do not see any cause to tamper with the order.However, Justice Nagarathna said, “In Karnataka it is more. It is in a crore.
“But, Karnataka is also giving benefit to EWS.” The attorney stated. “The difference between haves and have nots will have to be constitutionally kept.”
Justice Nagarathna said “those who have will pay”.
Counsel stated “I am unable to pay therefore I am before Your Lordships” .
However Justice Nagarathna stated he should apply for any scholarship. That’s another story. “Get a scholarship or subvention, get admission in a government college…”
Finally, the bench dismissed the plea saying, “High Court has passed an order. We see no need to upset the order.
