NRI Students Liable for Entire Tuition Fee Inclusive of Earmarked Corpus Fund Amounts

The petitioners, MBBS students admitted under the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in self-financing medical colleges, challenged the collection of ₹5,00,000 towards a "Corpus Fund".

Historically, the Fee Regulatory Committee increased NRI fees from ₹15 lakhs to ₹20 lakhs per annum from 2017 onwards, directing ₹5 lakhs of that amount be diverted to a Corpus Fund for BPL student scholarships.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in *Director, Jubilee Mission* (2020) found the Committee lacked statutory power to divert such fees.

Subsequently, the State issued G.O.(MS) No. 107/2018 to validate the fund, which the High Court quashed in 2023 for lack of legislative authority.

On appeal, the Supreme Court in *State of Kerala v. Principal KMCT Medical College* (2025) upheld the quashing of the Government Order but directed students to pay the "entire fees" to colleges, permitting colleges to retain the diverted ₹5 lakhs to subsidize BPL education.

Petitioners filed the present writ petitions contending that since the Corpus Fund was declared illegal, they should only pay the base tuition fee (₹15 lakhs or ₹16.65 lakhs) and not the additional ₹5 lakhs.

1. Whether the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee or the State Government has the power to determine and direct a portion of NRI fees be kept in a corpus fund.

2. Whether NRI students are entitled to a refund or set-off of the ₹5,00,000 previously designated for the Corpus Fund.

3. Whether the total fee payable by NRI students is limited to the tuition component excluding the disputed ₹5,00,000.

The court applied the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, specifically Sections 8 and 11 regarding fee fixation.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *State of Kerala v. Principal KMCT Medical College [2025 KHC OnLine 6505]*, which interpreted the transitional powers under *P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra*.

The core doctrine established is that while a Committee cannot create a Corpus Fund without specific legislation, it is competent to prescribe and review the reasonableness of the "entire fee" charged to NRI students.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' challenge was based on a "mistaken assumption" that the NRI fee was only ₹15 lakhs and the Corpus Fund was a separate, additional levy.

The Court clarified that the Fee Committee had actually fixed the *total* fee at ₹20 lakhs (later increased by 5%) after determining such a figure was reasonable and not exploitative.

The illegality identified in prior judgments related only to the *diversion* and *management* of those funds by the State, not the quantum of the fee itself.

Applying the Apex Court’s directions, the Court noted that the Supreme Court expressly denied NRI students any refund and commanded them to pay the "entire fees" as approved by the Committee.

Consequently, even though the designation "Corpus Fund" was legally infirm in the absence of legislation, the underlying amount was part of a validly fixed tuition fee that colleges were entitled to retain for subsidizing BPL students.

The Court ruled that NRI students are not entitled to a refund or set-off of these amounts as per the Supreme Court’s mandate.

However, acknowledging the prior interim protection, the Court granted the petitioners six weeks to satisfy all fee arrears, during which time colleges are restrained from encashing bank guarantees.