Mr. Giri, the Trust's writ petition was dismissed in limine. The deficiencies are established. How can you argue that the Trust is not primarily responsible for this situation?

My Lord, the Trust does not dispute that deficiencies were found. The Trust also accepts that the dismissal of the writ petition in limine affirms the MCI's findings. However, the Trust submits that the situation was not caused by the Trust alone. The regulatory framework itself was in flux. This Court in Hind Charitable Trust recognised the need for a pragmatic solution precisely because the MCI's inspection process had created chaos. The Trust is not seeking to avoid liability; it is seeking to ensure that liability is apportioned fairly. The Trust has deposited Rs.2 crores and furnished Rs.10 crores in bank guarantees. That is a substantial contribution. The students, who also benefited from the education, should bear some residual liability.

The Trust collected higher fees from students but failed to provide a recognised institution. Shouldn't the Trust refund those fees to the students or pay them to the transferee colleges?

My Lord, the Trust is agreeable to the release of the bank guarantees and deposit to the transferee colleges. Those amounts — approximately Rs.14 crores — will go to compensate the transferee colleges. The students have already completed their courses. They have received their degrees. They are now practicing medicine. If the Trust were to refund fees to the students, that money would not reach the transferee colleges. The equitable solution is to send the Trust's money directly to the colleges that provided the education.

Why should students pay any additional amount when the Trust's funds are almost sufficient to cover the SRMCH-rate liability? The shortfall is only about Rs.2 crores out of Rs.16.2 crores.

My Lord, that is a matter of arithmetic. The students submit that the shortfall should be absorbed by the Trust or the State. The Trust submits that the students benefited from the education and should not receive a complete windfall. The Trust has already lost its bank guarantees and deposit — that is a significant penalty. The students, by contrast, have received full value. The Trust is not asking for the students to pay the full differential; only the residual amount after the Trust's contribution. That is fair.

The transferee colleges have conceded to accept SRMCH rates rather than their own rates. That is a substantial concession. Why should the Trust complain about paying SRMCH rates?

My Lord, the Trust does not complain about paying SRMCH rates. The Trust accepts that the transferee colleges should be compensated at SRMCH rates. The Trust's objection is to the proposition that the students should pay nothing. The Trust has already contributed approximately Rs.14 crores. The students have contributed approximately Rs.30,000 per annum — a tiny fraction. The Trust submits that the students should pay the difference between what they have already paid (Government rates) and the SRMCH rates for the semesters they spent in the transferee colleges. That would be an equitable apportionment.

For RespondentCivil Premium

Primary Liability on Defaulting Trust, Not Students — (2026) INSC 488

The Selvam Trust (SRMCH) failed to maintain regulatory standards, collected higher fees, and caused the students to be displaced.

Soumya Ranjan Panda v. Subhalaxmi Dash — (2026) INSC 488

Core Argument

The Selvam Trust (SRMCH) failed to maintain regulatory standards, collected higher fees, and caused the students to be displaced. The Trust's bank guarantees and deposited amounts should be used to compensate the transferee colleges. Students may bear residual liability limited to SRMCH rates, not the higher transferee college rates.

Key Precedents

Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, order dated 24 September 2014 — This Court directed that fees shall be at Government rates 'till the students so admitted pass out', which the Trust has complied with.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in