Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College v. State of West Bengal
“No Mid-Course Fee Hikes: Fees for Professional Courses Must Be Notified for the Entire Course Before Admission”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court considered whether fees for professional courses at self-financing institutions can be changed midstream. Students of the 2023-27 B.Tech batch at Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College had joined in September 2023 on a stated fee structure, but after the West Bengal Government issued a Notification dated 16 October 2023 raising the fee ceiling to Rs. 1,10,000 per annum, the college revised fees on 15 December 2023, a 37.5% increase from the second semester, and added a development fee. The Court upheld the Calcutta High Court Division Bench's conclusion that the revised fee could not apply to students whose admissions were completed before 16 October 2023, but for independent reasons: the principle of certainty, the AICTE Regulations 1994 and the National Education Policy, 2020 require fees for the entire course to be notified before admission, with variation only in exceptional cases. The Court rejected the High Court's retrospectivity and estoppel reasoning, held that fee fixation committees must function with institutional efficiency, and affirmed the High Court's refund and adjustment directions.
The Bottom Line
A student entering a four-year professional course should ordinarily know at the threshold what the course will cost. The Supreme Court held that regulators must notify fees for the entire course before admissions, and that changes during the course are permissible only in exceptional instances such as unforeseen cost increases. The blame for the mid-course hike lay with the delayed functioning of the fee committee and State, so the already-admitted students were protected and the college must refund or adjust the additional fees.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Expert Committee Constituted
The State Government constituted an Expert Committee to assess and recommend fees for undergraduate professional courses in West Bengal.
Expert Committee Constituted
The State Government constituted an Expert Committee to assess and recommend fees for undergraduate professional courses in West Bengal.
Fee Structure Committee Adopts Recommendation
The Fee Structure Committee considered and adopted the Expert Committee's recommendation to enhance the upper fee ceiling and forwarded it to the State Government.
Fee Structure Committee Adopts Recommendation
The Fee Structure Committee considered and adopted the Expert Committee's recommendation to enhance the upper fee ceiling and forwarded it to the State Government.
Students Admitted (2023-27 Cohort)
After WBJEE counselling in July-August 2023, students were admitted to B.Tech courses at the college in September 2023 on the then-applicable fee structure.
Students Admitted (2023-27 Cohort)
After WBJEE counselling in July-August 2023, students were admitted to B.Tech courses at the college in September 2023 on the then-applicable fee structure.
State Notification Revises Fee Ceiling
The Department of Higher Education issued the Notification revising the maximum annual tuition fee to Rs. 1,10,000 and applying it from the 2023-24 academic year.
State Notification Revises Fee Ceiling
The Department of Higher Education issued the Notification revising the maximum annual tuition fee to Rs. 1,10,000 and applying it from the 2023-24 academic year.
College Revises Fees Midstream
The college revised the fee structure for the 2023-27 cohort effective January 2024, producing a 37.5% increase, including a new development fee.
College Revises Fees Midstream
The college revised the fee structure for the 2023-27 cohort effective January 2024, producing a 37.5% increase, including a new development fee.
Single Judge Dismisses Writ Petitions
The Calcutta High Court Single Judge held there was no legal infirmity in the revision and dismissed the petitions.
Single Judge Dismisses Writ Petitions
The Calcutta High Court Single Judge held there was no legal infirmity in the revision and dismissed the petitions.
Division Bench Partly Allows Appeals
The Division Bench held the revised fees inapplicable to students whose admission was completed before 16 October 2023 and directed refund or adjustment.
Division Bench Partly Allows Appeals
The Division Bench held the revised fees inapplicable to students whose admission was completed before 16 October 2023 and directed refund or adjustment.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, upheld the High Court's final directions for independent reasons and laid down principles on certainty of fees and fee fixation committees.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, upheld the High Court's final directions for independent reasons and laid down principles on certainty of fees and fee fixation committees.
The Story
The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations (WBJEE) 2023 was held on 30 April 2023 for admissions to engineering colleges for the 2023-24 academic year, with results declared on 26 May 2023. The WBJEE Board conducted centralised counselling in July-August 2023, and in September 2023 the respondent-students were admitted to B.Tech courses (2023-27 cohort) at Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College, a self-financing college affiliated to the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology. The college prospectus contained a clause that the "fee structure is subject to change from time to time as per Government decision", and a per-semester fee schedule applied to the 2023-27 cohort (for example, tuition of Rs. 44,000 in 2023-24 rising to Rs. 47,300 in 2026-27 for CSE/IT/ECE).
About one and a half months after admissions closed, the Department of Higher Education issued a Notification dated 16 October 2023 revising the upper ceiling of fees for self-financing engineering, pharmacy and architecture colleges to a maximum annual tuition fee of Rs. 1,10,000 per student, with development fees up to 15% of tuition and up to 10% additional tuition for autonomous or accredited colleges, and stating that the structure would continue for at least four years for B.Tech and B.Pharm and five years for B.Arch from the 2023-24 session. The Court noted that the Notification stemmed from a belated revision exercise: an Expert Committee had been constituted on 15 November 2019, its recommendation was adopted by the Fee Structure Committee on 9 June 2023, and the previous revision was in 2016-17, a hiatus of about seven years.
On 15 December 2023, after the semester was well under way, the college revised the fee structure for the 2023-27 cohort from the second semester (January 2024), raising tuition (for example to Rs. 60,500 for CSE/IT/ECE) and adding a per-semester development fee, resulting in a 37.5% increase. Students sought a rollback and then filed writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court, though they ultimately abandoned their challenge to the Notification itself and confined themselves to the validity of applying the revised structure to students admitted in 2023-24. They relied on Regulation 7 of the AICTE (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994.
The Single Judge dismissed the petitions by judgment dated 15 January 2026, relying on the prospectus clause and holding that Regulation 7(7) and the Notification did not treat the fee structure as indivisible. The Division Bench, by common judgment dated 23 March 2026, partly allowed the students' appeals: it held that Regulation 7(7) contemplates en bloc fixation of fees for the entire course, that the Notification applied only to students admitted on or after 16 October 2023, that applying it to earlier admittees would be retrospective, and that equity and estoppel applied. It quashed the revised fee structures as against students whose admissions were completed before 16 October 2023 and directed refund or adjustment of additional amounts. The college and other self-financing colleges represented by the Association of Professional Academic Institutes, West Bengal, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Prospectus clause permitted fee revision as per Government decision
The college relied on the clause in its prospectus that "fee structure is subject to change from time to time as per Government decision." The Single Judge accepted that this clause, combined with the fact that neither the Notification nor Regulation 7(7) treated the fee structure as indivisible, meant there was no legal infirmity in the revision. The Single Judge also held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to avoid a contractual obligation.
The Notification enabled revision from 2023-24 for four years
The Notification dated 16.10.2023 revised the upper ceiling of fees chargeable by self-financing colleges and made the arrangement applicable from the 2023-24 academic year itself, to continue for at least four years for B.Tech and B.Pharm. The college revised the fee on that basis and also needed the revision to recover the costs of education, as the last revision was seven years earlier. (The judgment records the appellants being represented by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. Harin Raval and Mr. Rauf Rahim, Senior Advocates, without separately summarising their submissions; the above reflects the positions recorded in the judgment.)
Respondent
State of Haryana
Revision violates Regulation 7 of the AICTE Regulations, 1994
The students contended that the upward revision violated Regulation 7 of the AICTE Regulations, 1994, in particular Regulation 7(7), which requires the college to intimate the fees chargeable for the entire course in advance and requires the total fee to be divided across the years or semesters, with only the first year or semester's fee collected at first. The Division Bench accepted that this contemplated en bloc fixation of fees for the whole course.
Fee arrangement was intended to continue for the full duration of the course, and reliance on the college's information
The students argued that the college's original fee structure was intended to continue for the full 2023-27 course, that applying the Notification to already-admitted students would be retrospective, and that they had relied on the fee information made available at the time of admission, invoking equity and estoppel. They abandoned their challenge to the Notification itself and confined their contest to its application to the 2023-27 batch. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court framed fee determination as the coordination of three legitimate interests: certainty for students and parents, adequate resources for institutions, and the societal interest in reasonable fees and timely implementation. On the first, it relied on an empirical study showing that professional courses take a substantial share of household expenditure and noted that many students rely on loans. On the second, it relied on TMA Pai Foundation, recognising the role of private enterprise and the need for a reasonable return. It then traced the regulatory mechanism through TMA Pai, Islamic Academy and P.A. Inamdar, the AICTE Regulations 1994 and NEP 2020, which opposes arbitrary fee increases during enrolment. Relying on Lifecare Innovations v. Union of India on the duty of constitutional courts to ensure that regulatory bodies function effectively and efficiently, it emphasised institutional efficiency. A conjoint reading of Regulations 7(1), 7(4) and 7(5) showed that revision is permissible only through the committee, with a minimum gap of three years, on estimated expenditure and audited figures. The Court reasoned that revised fees represent the cost of education at a point in time and deferral to future batches would cause deficits, so periodic revision is needed, but with certainty for the batch concerned. Fee committees should recommend well in advance and authorities decide before admissions so that the fee for the entire course is known at the threshold, with a narrow exceptional mechanism for unforeseen cost increases. On the facts, the State and committee had acted inefficiently by delaying revision since 2016-17, and the problem could have been avoided had the Notification been issued before the 2023-24 session. The college could not be blamed for its anxiety, but the students could not bear the consequence of the delay.
The question, therefore, is not whether a fee revision can take place, but the method and manner in which it is undertaken, concluded, and put into effect.
Para 29
Shifts the focus from the permissibility of revision to the process and timing of revision.
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.
Para 32
States the central principle of certainty of fee liability.
such adjustment must remain an exception and cannot become a substitute for timely assessment and proper institutional planning.
Para 32
Confines mid-course adjustments to narrow, unforeseen circumstances.
The fee fixation committee and the State Government acted inefficiently
Para 34
Attributes the controversy to regulatory delay in revising fees due since 2016-17.
the approach adopted by the High Court in applying principles of equity and estoppel against the Appellant-College on the basis of its admission brochure is not sustainable in law.
Para 35
Removes estoppel and retrospectivity from the reasoning even though the result is affirmed.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Students whose admission process was completed before 16 October 2023 are protected from the revised fee structure, and additional amounts collected must be refunded before the next semester or adjusted against fees payable for the next semester at the earlier fee structure, with any balance refunded within one month of that semester starting. The colleges retain the right to apply the revised fee ceiling to later batches.
Directions Issued
- Fee fixation committees have a statutory foundation and an important public purpose, and High Courts will exercise due judicial review to ensure that they perform their duties with institutional efficiency, expertise and integrity
- The relevant authorities must notify the fee payable for the entire course before a student takes admission, ensuring certainty of fee liability
- Variation of the fee during the subsistence of the course is permissible only in exceptional instances such as unforeseen increases in expenditure
- The High Court's final directions (paragraph 75 of its judgment, reproduced in paragraph 15 of this judgment) on the applicability of the Notification and on refund or adjustment of additional fees are affirmed, and the appellant-college must take necessary steps to comply
- The High Court's reasoning on retrospectivity and on equity and estoppel is set aside
- Pending applications disposed of, and parties to bear their own costs
Key Legal Principles Established
Fees for professional courses at self-financing institutions must be determined and notified for the entire course before a student takes admission.
Variation of fees during the course is permissible only in exceptional instances, such as unforeseen increases in expenditure, and must not substitute for timely assessment and planning.
Fee determination involves balancing students' interest in certainty and reasonable fees, institutions' interest in resources and a reasonable return, and the societal interest in appropriate fee fixation.
Fee fixation committees are virtually regulatory bodies performing a public function; they must act with efficiency, expertise and integrity, and their actions are subject to judicial review.
Under Regulations 7(1), 7(4) and 7(5) of the AICTE Regulations 1994, fee revision must be recommended by the committee, with a gap of at least three years, on the basis of estimated expenditure and audited figures.
Committees should recommend well in advance so that the competent authorities decide before admissions commence, and committees should assess foreseeable cost increases over the duration of the course.
NEP 2020 expresses a policy against arbitrary or unjustified fee increases during the period of a student's enrolment.
Delay by regulators in revising fees cannot be passed on to students already admitted.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you join a professional course such as engineering, the fee for the whole course should be known when you take admission.
- A college cannot normally raise your fee midway through the course because the government later raises the fee ceiling.
- If extra fees were collected from you in such a situation, you may be entitled to a refund or adjustment against future fees.
- Fees can still be changed for later batches, so the rule protects students already admitted rather than freezing fees forever.
- Exceptions are allowed only for unforeseen increases in costs, and not for delays in government decisions.
- The Court has asked High Courts to ensure fee committees work efficiently and on time, so students are not caught out by delays.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 226
Constitution of India
“Power of High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.”
Relevance: The students invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, and the Supreme Court directed that High Courts will exercise due judicial review to ensure fee fixation committees perform with institutional efficiency, expertise and integrity.
Statutory Provisions
Regulation 7
AICTE (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994
“Tuition and other fees for professional colleges are to be determined by a State Level committee; fees to be fixed once in every three years or at longer intervals on the basis of estimated expenditure; colleges must intimate in advance the fees chargeable for the entire course, divided across years or semesters, subject to the ceiling fixed by the Standing Committee.”
Relevance: The students relied on Regulation 7(7); the Court held that a conjoint reading of Regulations 7(1), 7(4) and 7(5) shows revision is permissible only on the committee's recommendation with a three-year gap, on estimated expenditure and audited figures, and that certainty is a normative principle recognised in the Regulations.
Paragraphs 18.13 and 18.14
National Education Policy, 2020
“Private HEIs to be treated on par within the regulatory regime; transparent fee-fixing mechanisms with an upper limit; all fees to be disclosed transparently and there shall be no arbitrary increases in fees during the period of enrolment of any student.”
Relevance: The Court noted that NEP 2020 reflects a clear policy position against unjustified fee increases during enrolment, supporting the certainty principle.
No. 466-Edn-(T)/10M-04/2004 (Part IV) dated 16.10.2023
West Bengal Department of Higher Education Notification
“Fixes the maximum annual tuition fee of Rs. 1,10,000 per student for private self-financing engineering, pharmacy and architecture programmes, with development fees up to 15% of tuition and additional tuition of up to 10% for accredited or autonomous colleges, applicable from the 2023-24 academic session.”
Relevance: The basis on which the college revised fees in December 2023; the High Court read it down to apply only to students admitted on or after 16 October 2023, which the Supreme Court affirmed in effect.
Related Cases & Precedents
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
followed(2002) 8 SCC 481
Eleven-Judge Bench decision on the rights of private unaided educational institutions; relied upon for the role of private enterprise in professional education and the framework of fee regulation.
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
followed(2005) 6 SCC 537
Seven-Judge Bench decision on the regulation of fees and admissions in unaided professional institutions; the fee fixation committees derive from this line of authority.
Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
followed(2003) 6 SCC 697
Directed the constitution of committees to oversee fee structures in private professional institutions, forming the origin of the fee fixation committee mechanism discussed.
Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
followed2025 SCC OnLine SC 436
Held that the first duty of constitutional courts reviewing administrative bodies is to ensure that they are able to perform their obligations effectively and efficiently; quoted at paragraph 28.
Tanushri Mondal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
cited2026 SCC OnLine Cal 2382
The Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment under appeal; its final directions were affirmed but its reasoning on retrospectivity and estoppel was set aside.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.