'Educational Institutions Should Be Sensitive About Aftermath Of The Pandemic': Patna HC Sets Aside CNLU's Demand For Payment of 'Library Fees' & 'Examination Fees'

The Patna High Court has recently ruled that the demand of Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) with respect to payment of facilities fees and examination fees from the students with respect to academic year 2020-2021 is 'arbitrary and illegal' in view of the fact that students had not attended classes and had not availed these facilities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by law student Kartikay Trivedi seeking quashing of demands from the University to deposit the entire fees for the Academic year 2020-2021. The petitioner had prayed for Court's directions to ensure that the University is allowed to charge only the tuition fees during this period. 

Justice P.B Bajanthri observed, 

"The students have not attended the classes during the COVID-19 Pandemic, therefore, the demand of the University in respect of payment of facilities fees and library fees are arbitrary and illegal for the reasons that when the petitioners could not attend the classes as it was beyond their control in view of COVID-19 Pandemic was in vogue, therefore it is not proper for the University to demand facility fees and library fees during the COVID-19 Pandemic period from the students"

In the instant case, CNLU vide an official memorandum dated August 7, 2020 had demanded from the students 'tuition fees' to the tune of Rs. 94,500 and Rs 2,62,500 from students belonging to the NRI sponsored category. Furthermore, Rs 15, 000 had been demanded under the category of 'examination fee as well as facilities fees' and Rs 5000 as 'library fees'.

During the course of the hearing, the counsel representing the university argued that the university has been facing severe financial crisis and that the Academic Council had approved the levy of the aforementioned charges with respect to facilities fees and library fees. It was also pointed out to the Court that the university has not been charging room rents of the hostel, mess fee and electricity charges of the hostel. The counsel further apprised the Court that students had been provided with a total concession and waiver to the tune of Rs. 1,02,00,000 approximately.

However, refusing to agree with the contentions raised the Court observed that mere purchase of books and other infrastructure does not entitle the university to demand fees towards facilities fees and library fees especially since students are not benefited by the aforesaid facilities.

The Court further placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Indian School, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan wherein the Apex Court while dealing with a batch of petitions pertaining to recovery of school fees during the pandemic had held that the management of educational institutions should be sensitive to the problems faced by people due to the pandemic and accordingly take steps to provide 'succour to students and their parents in these harsh times'. The Apex Court had further stated that insisting on payment for facilities not provided to students would amount to profiteering which must be avoided by the educational institutions.

"In law, the school management can not be heard to collect fees in respect of activities and facilities which are, in fact, not provided to or availed of by its students due to circumstances beyond their control. Demanding fees even in respect of overheads on such activities would be nothing short of indulging in profiteering and commercialization. It is a well-known fact and judicial notice can also be taken that due to complete lockdown, schools were not allowed to open for substantially long period during the academic year 2020-2021. Resultantly, the School management must have saved overheads and recurring cost on various items such as petrol/diesel, electricity, maintenance cost, water charges, stationery charges etc", the High Court observed while quoting from the Supreme Court order.

Emphasizing on the need for educational institutions to take measures to abate the financial hardships of students and parents, the Court remarked further,

"Educational institutions should not be rigid and not be sensitive about the aftermath of the pandemic. The educational management supposedly engaged in doing charitable activity of imparting education, is expected to responsive and alive to that situation and take necessary remedial measures to mitigate the hardship suffered by students and their parents. It is for the educational institution to reschedule payment of college itself in such a way that not even a single student is left out or denied opportunity for pursuing his/her education, so as to effectuate the adage—live and let live."

Furthermore, the Court proceeded to quote from the aforementioned Supreme Court order wherein it had been observed, "Indeed, overheads and operational costs so saved would be nothing, but an amount undeservedly earned by the school without offering such facilities to the students during the relevant period... the principle of quid pro quo must come into play. However, no accurate (factual) empirical data has been furnished by either side about the extent to which such savings have been or could have been made or benefits derived by the school management. Without insisting for mathematical exactitude approach, we would assume that the school management(s) must have saved around 15% of the annual school fees." It is also observed that students are not liable to pay fees for unutilized facilities during the relevant period of pandemic year 2020-21, the Court stated further.

 The Court also placed reliance on Article 41 of the Constitution which provides for the right to secure the right of work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases of unemployment, old age sickness and disability. Similarly Article 46 of the Constitution deals with education of weaker sections of the people, it was noted further.

Accordingly, the Court directed, 

"The demand for facility and library fees of a Sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- are arbitrary and illegal and such demand from student are set aside. The petitioners are hereby directed to pay the then fees as demanded pursuant to official Memorandum dated 07.08.2020. The Respondent-University if they have collected fee under the Head of Facilities & Library fee from any student the same shall be refunded at the earliest."

The petitioner has been represented by Advocates Sumeet Singh, Shubham Bajaj and Suyash Rawat. 

Case Title: Kartikay Trivedi and Ors v. Chanakya National Law University 

Click Here To Read/Download Order