Supreme Court Rejects EWS Plea On Private Medical College Fees, Says Reservation Does Not Mean Fee Concession

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by an Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidate who argued that private medical college fees are beyond the reach of students eligible under the EWS category.

Refusing to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court order, a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the validity of the fee structure fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee. The Court reiterated that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not automatically entitle candidates to subsidised or concessional fees in private medical colleges, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.

“We don't find reason to intervene with the High Court order. Dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open,” the Bench said.

‘Private Colleges Cannot Charge Government Fees’

During the hearing, the petitioner argued that it was unfair to allow private medical colleges in Rajasthan to charge annual tuition fees ranging from ₹18.9 lakh to ₹25 lakh when the EWS income limit is ₹8 lakh a year.

However, Justice Nagarathna said private institutions and government colleges operate under different models and cannot be treated alike.

“You cannot say private educational institutions shall charge the same as government institution. That cannot be. One person cannot come and say that private is exorbitant, so make it like government. These are self-financing institutes. For government ones... they get grant (subsidies) from the State. There is a vital difference,” she observed.

Referring to the TMA Pai judgment, she added, “Capitation fee is banned... but that does not mean general college fees cannot be taken.”

The Court also warned that forcing private colleges to charge government-level fees could affect medical education itself.

“Assistance of private medical colleges to the State in the field of medical education will stop then... We need doctors,” Justice Nagarathna said.

EWS Candidate Said Quota Becomes Meaningless

The petitioner, a 22-year-old candidate from Rajasthan, appeared for NEET-UG 2025 under the general category and held a valid EWS certificate. He did not opt for private medical colleges in the first two rounds of counselling because of their high fees.

After obtaining an interim order from the Rajasthan High Court, he participated in the third round of counselling under the EWS category and submitted preferences for 73 colleges. However, he was allotted a general seat in a private medical college.

Before the High Court, he argued that the allotment was arbitrary because EWS seats remained vacant in a college of his choice. He also challenged the fact that EWS candidates were being charged the same fees as general category students.

The petitioner contended that the fee structure effectively defeats the purpose of EWS reservation because candidates whose family income is below ₹8 lakh cannot realistically afford annual fees of up to ₹25 lakh.

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the argument, noting that the fee structure had been fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.

The High Court held that EWS reservation operates only at the admission stage and does not create any right to differential or concessional fees in private colleges. It also observed that the absence of a statutory provision mandating fee concessions meant that high fees alone could not be treated as a denial of EWS reservation, even if they limited practical access for eligible students.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the constitutional goal of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor must be preserved.

“Those who have, will pay,” Justice Nagarathna responded.

When counsel submitted that the petitioner could not afford the fees, the judge remarked, “That is different. Get a scholarship or subvention or get into a government college...”

The petitioner also relied on a National Medical Commission Office Memorandum dated Feb 3, 2022, which recommended that fees for 50% of seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities should be at par with government medical colleges in the concerned state or Union Territory.

However, Justice Bagchi noted that Rajasthan had not adopted the memorandum. The Bench was also not persuaded by the argument that the memorandum had statutory force under the National Medical Commission Act.

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling.

A separate writ petition challenging the National Medical Commission memorandum relating to government-level fees for 50% of seats in private medical colleges remains pending before the Supreme Court.