Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental Sciences

Held

The Court held that the action of Respondent No. 1 in retaining the petitioner's original academic certificates and demanding payment of the entire course fee as a condition for their release is illegal and contrary to the University Grants Commission (UGC) notification of October 2018. The Court referred to Clause 4.2.1 to 4.2.5 of the UGC notification, which strictly prohibits higher education institutions from insisting upon students submitting original certificates at the time of admission, mandating the submission of self-attested copies, and requiring physical verification of originals with immediate return. Clause 4.2.4 explicitly prohibits taking certificates into institutional custody under any circumstances or pretext. The Court reasoned that original academic certificates are the property of the student and are crucial for their right to education and livelihood under Article 21. Institutions have no lien over these certificates, and withholding them is not a permissible mode of fee recovery. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 and 2 to return the petitioner's original academic certificates within one week of receiving the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Anisha Busa, a student, approached the High Court challenging the action of SIBAR Institute of Dental Sciences (Respondent No. 1) and NTR University of Health Sciences (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner had secured a seat in the BDS course at Respondent No. 1 college based on her NEET 2019 rank. She submitted her original academic certificates, including SSC Markslist, Intermediate Marks Memorandum, Study and Conduct Certificate, Transfer Certificate, and Migration Certificate, which were forwarded to Respondent No. 1. Due to medical complications, the petitioner could not join the course and requested the return of her certificates. Respondent No. 1 demanded payment of the entire course fee of ₹5,46,978/- per year for the remaining four years as a condition for releasing the certificates. The petitioner argued this demand was illegal and contrary to UGC guidelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 1 in retaining the petitioner's original academic certificates and demanding the entire course fee for their release is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to UGC guidelines? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the demand for the entire course fee for the return of academic certificates is illogical, contrary to UGC guidelines, and a settled position of law that colleges cannot retain certificates to demand fees. She argued that her fundamental right to education and livelihood under Article 21 is impacted. Respondent No. 1's Arguments: Respondent No. 1, a private unaided institution, argued that the writ petition is not maintainable. It admitted the petitioner submitted certificates but did not pay the first-year fee of ₹5,49,000/- and did not join the college. It stated it has no objection to returning certificates if the petitioner pays the entire course fee of ₹21,96,000/-, along with other fees and cancellation fees, asserting that private colleges are entitled to the full fee when students voluntarily drop out. Respondent No. 2's Arguments: The Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 fairly admitted that the demand for the entire course fee for returning academic certificates is not permissible as per UGC guidelines.