The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea filed by a candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section seeking fixation of private medical colleges' fees at par with government colleges' fees.
When the petitioner contended that it was arbitrary to fix tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan at Rs 25 lakhs when the EWS income limit is Rs 8 lakhs per annum, the Court orally observed that self-financing institutions cannot be mandated to have the same fee structure as government colleges.
"Those who have, will pay...this one person cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution, make it on par with the govt institution", said Justice BV Nagarathna, adding that one who cannot pay has the option to avail a scholarship, subvention or a government college seat.
A partial Court working days bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
The petitioner, a 22-year-old candidate from Rajasthan, appeared in NEET-UG 2025. He belonged to the general category and held a valid EWS certificate. In two counselling rounds, he did not opt for private medical colleges due to their high fee structure (tuition fee ranging from Rs.18.9 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs per annum).
For the third round of counselling, he secured an interim order from the Rajasthan High Court for participating under the EWS category and submitted preferences for 73 colleges. Notwithstanding, the counselling board allotted him a general seat in a private medical college.
Aggrieved, the petitioner claimed before the High Court that the allotment was arbitrary, especially as EWS seats remained vacant in a college of his preference. He also assailed the fact that EWS candidates were being charged the same high tuition fees as general category candidates.
The petitioner relied on an Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2022 issued by the National Medical Commission, which apparently recommended that fee of 50% seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities should be at par with government medical colleges of the relevant state/UT. He ultimately sought directions for fixation of reasonable and affordable fees for such candidates.
At first, a Single Bench of the High Court rejected his writ petition. Subsequently, a Division Bench dismissed his appeal, noting that EWS reservation under 103rd Constitutional Amendment operates only at the point of admission and "does not, in the absence of an enforceable statutory provision or binding directive, create any right to concessional fees in private medical colleges".
The High Court further held that if reserved category seats were exhausted before a particular counselling round and duly converted to unreserved seats in accordance with counselling regulations, their allotment on merit did not amount to denial of reservation.
Assailing the High Court order, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna remarked that putting the fee structure of government and private medical colleges at parity risked closure of private medical colleges.
"What does TMA Pai say? Self financing institutions means what? Capitation fee is banned. But that doesn't mean you have to take it as per govt college rate", the judge commented.
When the counsel for petitioner argued that the private colleges have a benefit of seat increase, which allows seats to be converted to general seats (and profiteering), the judge responded,
"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 said.
Subsequently, the counsel pleaded that the difference between haves and have nots has to be constitutionally maintained. "Those who have, will pay", Justice Nagarathna quipped in response.
When the counsel submitted that the petitioner is unable to pay and therefore has moved the court, the judge remarked, "That is different. Get a scholarship or subvention or get into a government college...".
Insofar as the counsel's submission that the NMC's Office Memorandum had statutory force (based on S.10 of NMC Act), the bench was not particularly convinced. Justice Bagchi noted from the paperbook that the State of Rajasthan had not adopted the OM.
It may be noted that a writ petition challenging the NMC memorandum for govt fee in 50% private medical seats is pending in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: HARSHVARDHAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 21751/2026