Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Affirms Regulatory Role of AFRC in Fixation of Fees for Minority Educational Institutions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on March 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the regulatory role of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) in determining fees charged by minority educational institutions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar, clarified the position of minority institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007.

The Court emphasized the interpretation given in the earlier Constitution Bench decision of Modern Dental College and Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353, stating, "The Act of 2007 has been interpreted to mean that the AFRC, constituted thereunder, exercises only the power of ‘regulation’ in respect of the fees proposed by the institution, conditioned by the parameters in Section 9(1) of the Act of 2007." The Court further clarified that the AFRC's role is to review and regulate the fees proposed by minority educational institutions, ensuring they do not amount to profiteering or commercialization of education.

Justice Sanjay Kumar highlighted the balance between protecting the right of minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions and ensuring the standard of excellence in education. The judgment stated, "The appellant society must necessarily submit the fees proposed by it in respect of the professional courses offered through its institutions to the AFRC for the purpose of review and regulation, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2007 and the principles laid down by this Court."

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023

ICON EDUCATION SOCIETY vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/17-Mar-2023-ICON-Education-Vs-Madhya-Pardesh.pdf"]

Latest Legal News