The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidate seeking a direction that fees in private medical colleges be fixed at the same level as government medical colleges, observing that self-financing institutions cannot be compelled to follow the fee structure of government-run institutions.

A vacation Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected the challenge after noting that private medical colleges operate on a self-financing model and cannot be required to charge fees equivalent to government colleges.

When the petitioner argued that charging annual tuition fees of up to ₹25 lakh in Rajasthan’s private medical colleges was arbitrary given that the EWS income ceiling is ₹8 lakh per annum, Justice Nagarathna remarked that students who can afford such fees would pay them, while those who cannot have other avenues available.

“Those who have, will pay. This one person cannot say that it is exorbitant in the private institution and make it on par with the government institution,” the Court orally observed, adding that a student unable to bear the cost could seek scholarships, financial assistance, or secure admission in a government medical college.

The petitioner, a 22-year-old Rajasthan resident and EWS candidate who appeared in NEET-UG 2025, contended that he did not opt for private medical colleges during the first two counselling rounds because of the high tuition fees, which ranged between ₹18.9 lakh and ₹25 lakh annually. During the third counselling round, he participated under the EWS category pursuant to an interim order of the Rajasthan High Court and listed preferences for 73 colleges. However, he was ultimately allotted a general category seat in a private medical college.

Before the High Court, he challenged the allotment, claiming that EWS seats remained vacant in a college of his preference and that EWS candidates were being charged the same fees as general category students. He relied on a February 3, 2022 Office Memorandum issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC), which recommended that fees for 50 per cent of seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities be aligned with government medical college fees in the respective State or Union Territory.

Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his challenge. The Division Bench held that EWS reservation, introduced through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, applies only at the stage of admission and does not automatically confer a right to concessional fees in private medical colleges in the absence of a binding statutory provision or enforceable directive.

The High Court also observed that once reserved seats are exhausted and converted into unreserved seats in accordance with counselling regulations, their allotment on merit cannot be treated as a denial of reservation benefits.

Challenging these findings, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna referred to the principles laid down in the landmark judgment of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and stressed that self-financing institutions are entitled to determine their fee structures, subject to legal limitations such as the prohibition on capitation fees.

“What does TMA Pai say? Self-financing institutions means what? Capitation fee is banned. But that doesn't mean you have to take it as per government college rate,” the judge remarked.

Responding to the argument that private institutions benefit from increased seat intake and the conversion of reserved seats into general seats, Justice Nagarathna observed that forcing fee parity could undermine the role private institutions play in medical education.

“Otherwise, all these private institutions, their assistance to the State in the matter of medical education will become nil. They will all close down and diversify. We need doctors in this country,” the Court said.

When the petitioner’s counsel argued that constitutional principles require balancing inequalities between the affluent and the economically disadvantaged, Justice Nagarathna reiterated that students unable to afford private college fees could explore scholarships, fee subsidies, or government college admissions.

The Bench was also unconvinced by the argument that the NMC’s Office Memorandum had binding statutory force. Justice Bagchi pointed out that Rajasthan had not adopted the memorandum.

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition.

Notably, a separate challenge concerning the NMC’s recommendation to provide government-college-level fees for 50 per cent of seats in private medical colleges remains pending before the Supreme Court.

Case: Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SLP (C) No. 21751/2026.