The Madras High Court has refused relief to an MBBS graduate whose course completion and degree certificates were withheld by Chettinad Academy of Research and Education after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seized ₹1.13 crore paid towards her fees over an alleged Maoist funding link.

A single judge of the Court had earlier rejected her plea for a direction to the college to issue her Course Completion Certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on a repayment of fees.

On June 17, a Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the appeal filed by her against the April 2024 single judge order.

The Court acknowledged that the MBBS graduate (appellant) was not directly accused of any crimes, and that it was two of her family members who were named accused.

Nevertheless, the Court held that she could not claim a right over money that was allegedly part of the proceeds of a crime.

"While it may be true that the appellant is not directly arrayed as an accused in her individual capacity, she cannot assert an equitable right to benefit from the fruits of a crime," the Court said.

The Court added that the appellant, who maintained that she was absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing and that her fees were legitmately funded, could also approach the NIA court for a release of the seized funds.

"The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and rightly protects the financial autonomy of fifth respondent/college while leaving it open for the appellant to deposit the requisite fees anew and claim her certificates. No grounds for interference are established," the Court further said, before dismissing the appeal.

The MBBS graduate before the Court had completed the five-year medical college course and her Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship. During the course, ₹1,13,70,500 was remitted to the college towards her fees.

However, the NIA found during investigation that the money was allegedly derived from illegal and extorted funds. The agency said the funds were raised on behalf of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organisation.

The NIA then issued a production-cum-seizure notice to the college. This led to seizure of the entire fee amount. The college then withheld her certificates, citing non-realisation of fees.

She moved the Court challenging the college's move.

The appellant argued that educational certificates cannot be retained as security. She said they cannot be treated like financial deposits under a general lien.

She also denied any personal connection with any unlawful or terrorist organisation. She argued that no criminal or penal action had been taken against her.

The college opposed the plea. It said it had been deprived of the entire fee amount for no fault of its own. It argued that it could not be forced to bear a massive financial loss and fund the education of a student whose fees had been identified as proceeds of crime.

The Court noted that educational certificates are ordinarily not marketable commodities. It also said certificates cannot usually be withheld merely for recovery of dues.

However, it said the present case was different.

“The case at hand presents an extraordinary and intricate factual matrix involving national security, terrorist funding, and criminal asset seizure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967," it observed.

The Bench noted that the NIA chargesheet had named the appellant’s brother Tarun Kumar and her paternal uncle, Pradyuman Sharma, as accused.

The Court said that while the appellant was not personally arrayed as an accused, she could not claim an equitable right to benefit from the fruits of a crime.

“The moment the NIA seized and appropriated the fee amount from the college, the appellant’s account with the institution legally defaulted to an unpaid status," it added.

The Court also observed that the college had already used its resources, infrastructure and faculty to train her. As such, it would be unjust to force the college to release her certificates, the Court held.

“Forcing the institution to release the certificates when it has effectively received zero clean currency for her education would be a gross miscarriage of equity and justice," it said.

The appellant was represented by Advocates Rakesh Kumar and TS Baskaran.

Senior Central Government Standing Counsel V Sudha appeared for the Union of India and the National Medical Commission.

Advocate U Baranidharan appeared for the Tamil Nadu Medical Council.

The college was represented by Senior Advocate MS Krishnan with Advocate T Balaji.

[Read Judgment]