Fees for entire professional course must be notified before admission: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that fees for the entire duration of a professional course must be fixed before admission and should not be altered during the course except in exceptional circumstances. [Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College v. State of West Bengal]

Pertinently, the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said fee fixation committees must assess costs, including foreseeable increases over the duration of the course, and make recommendations well before admissions begin so that the authorities can decide the fees in advance.

“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,” it said.

The Court clarified that unforeseen expenses arising from extraordinary economic conditions or changes in law could justify a revision. However, such adjustments must remain exceptional and cannot replace timely assessment and proper planning, the bench underscored.

"The larger principle is thus one of certainty through efficient regulation," the Court held.

Specifically on fee fixation committees, the Court said that they must function as continuing institutions, capable of anticipating costs, undertaking periodic assessments, and making timely decisions.

"Its processes should be structured so that the fee determination is completed before admissions commence and, as far as reasonably possible, covers the entire duration of the professional course," the judgment said.

The Court was hearing appeals by Dr. BC Roy Engineering College and other private colleges against a Calcutta High Court ruling that barred them from applying a fee hike to students who had already taken admission.

The dispute arose after students joined the college’s four year B Tech courses for the 2023–27 batch in September 2023. On October 16, 2023, the West Bengal government issued a notification raising the annual tuition fee ceiling for self-financing professional colleges to ₹1.10 lakh.

Acting on the notification, the college revised its fees on December 15, 2023, making the increase applicable from the second semester in January 2024.

Semester tuition fees rose from ₹44,000 to ₹60,500 for certain branches and from ₹40,000 to ₹55,000 for others. The college also introduced a development fee.

The students challenged the hike before the Calcutta High Court. On January 15, 2026, a single-judge dismissed their petitions, relying on a prospectus clause stating that fees could change according to government decisions.

On March 23, 2026, a division bench of the High Court set aside that ruling and held that the revised fees could apply only to students admitted on or after October 16, 2023. It directed the colleges to refund the excess fees collected from students admitted before that date or adjust the amounts against their next semester’s fees.

The colleges then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directions protecting already admitted students from the fee hike, but rejected its reasoning based on retrospectivity, equity and estoppel.

“We are also of the opinion that 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. To that extent, the judgment of the High Court is set aside,” said the Court.

The bench instead relied on the need for certainty about students’ fee liability and timely fee fixation. The appeals were partly allowed to that extent.

The Court also directed High Courts to ensure that fee fixation committees perform their duties efficiently, with expertise and integrity.

“There must be certainty about the fee liability; variation in the fee payable during the subsistence of the course is permissible only in exceptional instances such as unforeseen increase in the expenditure,” it held.

Fee fixation committees should make recommendations well in advance and the competent authorities should take decisions well before the commencement of the admission process, the Court emphasised.

"The committee should examine the relevant costs, including infrastructure, faculty remuneration, maintenance, technology, statutory requirements, and other legitimate expenditure, make a reasonable assessment of foreseeable increases in such costs over the duration of the course, and make recommendations so that the competent authorities take the decision before the commencement of the course," the judgment said.

Students must know in advance the financial liability they and their families are undertaking, the Court added.

"Such advance determination promotes transparency, enables informed choice, and facilitates financial planning," the Court held.

However, the bench clarified that the judgment does not mean that the fee structure must remain incapable of adjustment in every conceivable circumstance.

Costs may increase unexpectedly because of extraordinary economic conditions, statutory changes or other circumstances which could not reasonably have been anticipated, the Court conceded.

Thus, a narrowly defined mechanism may therefore be provided to accommodate such exceptional circumstances but such adjustment must remain an exception and cannot become a substitute for timely assessment and proper institutional planning, the bench held.

Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Harin Raval and Rauf Rahim appeared for the appellants.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]