Mr. Venugopal, the students initially took admission in a private medical college and paid higher fees to SRMCH. They did not qualify for Government medical colleges on their own merit. Why should they get the benefit of Government rates for the entire duration simply because the Trust defaulted? Isn't that unjust enrichment?

My Lord, the students are not seeking a 'benefit'. They are seeking protection from a situation not of their making. They paid the fees demanded by SRMCH. They did everything right. When SRMCH was de-recognised, this Court intervened to protect their careers and specifically directed that they would pay Government rates 'till they pass out'. That direction was not a suggestion; it was an order of this Court. The students relied on that order. To now say that they must pay more would be to retrospectively alter the terms on which they completed their education. If there is any enrichment, it is the transferee colleges who received students and fees without having to go through the admission process. The Trust's bank guarantees and deposit should be used to compensate them, not the students.

The students signed undertakings before the transferee colleges acknowledging that the fee issue was pending before this Court and that they would abide by the final orders. Are they not bound by those undertakings?

My Lord, the students do not deny signing undertakings. However, those undertakings were given under compulsion — the colleges refused to issue course-completion certificates unless the students signed. Moreover, the undertakings acknowledged that the matter was 'pending' before this Court, not that the students agreed to pay any additional amount. The students understood that the Court would decide the issue fairly. The students submit that a fair decision must take into account that they are innocent victims, that they relied on this Court's interim orders, and that the defaulting Trust has substantial funds available. The students should not be penalised for signing a document under duress.

The chart shows that SRMCH charged Rs.2,12,500 per semester. The students paid only Rs.30,000 per annum at Government rates. That is a fraction. How can you say they are not being unjustly enriched?

My Lord, the students paid what this Court ordered them to pay. The Court specifically said fees shall be at Government rates 'till the students pass out'. The students cannot be accused of unjust enrichment for complying with a Court order. If there is any gap between the SRMCH rate and the Government rate, that gap is the result of the Trust's default. The Trust collected those higher fees from the students initially. The Trust still has that money? Did it refund the excess as directed? The record shows the Trust did not refund. That money is with the Trust. The students have already paid the SRMCH rate for the initial semesters. The Trust should be directed to refund that excess to the transferee colleges directly. The students should not be asked to pay twice.

The students have completed their courses, passed out, and are now practicing medicine. Some are earning well. Why should the burden of compensating the transferee colleges fall entirely on the Trust? The students also benefited from the education.

My Lord, the students benefited, but they also paid — they paid the Government rates as ordered. They also paid the SRMCH rates for the initial semesters before the de-recognition. They also suffered immense hardship — uncertainty, transfer mid-course, adaptation to new colleges. They lost years of their lives to litigation. The question is not whether they benefited; the question is who should bear the financial burden of the Trust's default. The Trust collected higher fees and failed to maintain standards. The Trust should bear the burden. The students have already borne the non-financial burden. To also ask them to pay additional lakhs of rupees years after passing out would be disproportionate and unjust.

For PetitionerCivil Premium

Students Were Not at Fault, Should Not Pay — (2026) INSC 488

The students were admitted through a valid State counselling process to SRMCH. They are innocent victims of the Trust's regulatory violations.

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

Core Argument

The students were admitted through a valid State counselling process to SRMCH. They are innocent victims of the Trust's regulatory violations. Having been compelled to transfer mid-course under court orders, they should not be burdened with additional fees at this belated stage.

Key Precedents

Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No. 469 of 2014 (order dated 18 September 2014) — The Supreme Court directed that students admitted pursuant to the order shall pay fees at Government rates 'till the students so admitted pass out', indicating the interim arrangement was intended to cover the entire course duration.
Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, order dated 24 September 2014 — Clarified that fees chargeable shall be at the same rates as applicable to Government medical colleges 'till the students so admitted pass out'.

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