Supreme Court Issues Notice in Case of Withheld MBBS Degree Following NIA Seizure of Fees
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a unique case involving an MBBS graduate, her medical college, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The graduate, Pooja Kumari, has approached the apex court challenging the decision of Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to withhold her degree and course completion certificate after the fees she had paid were seized by the NIA. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Central government and the college to respond to the plea, which contests the college's demand for a second payment of fees for the release of her academic documents.
The petitioner had secured admission to the MBBS programme at Chettinad Academy of Research and Education in 2017 through the standard counselling procedure. Throughout her studies, she remitted a total of ₹1.13 crore in fees to the institution via established banking channels. Following the successful completion of her MBBS course and the mandatory rotating medical internship, she became eligible for her degree and certificates.
However, in December 2021, the situation became complicated when the NIA registered a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against some of her relatives, alleging Maoist links. Her brother was also named as an accused in these proceedings. Crucially, the student herself was not arrayed as an accused in the NIA's investigation. During the course of the investigation, the NIA treated the funds paid towards her college fees as alleged proceeds of crime and subsequently seized the entire amount from the college's possession.
Following this seizure, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education refused to issue Ms. Kumari her final MBBS degree, provisional certificate-II, and course completion certificate. The college maintained that since the funds it had received had been seized by the NIA, the student would be required to pay the entire fee amount again before her certificates could be released.
Aggrieved by this stance, the student initially challenged the college's decision before the Madras High Court. She argued that she had already fulfilled her financial obligations by paying the fees and should not be compelled to pay a second time merely because an investigating agency had subsequently seized the funds. A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court, however, rejected her petition in April 2024. Subsequently, a division bench of the High Court upheld this decision in June 2026.
The division bench of the Madras High Court observed that while educational certificates cannot typically be withheld as security for unpaid fees, the circumstances in this particular case were distinct. The High Court reasoned that the college had been deprived of the fee amount due to the NIA's seizure, thereby justifying its demand. The division bench further held that the student's appropriate remedy was to seek the release of the seized money from the competent special court overseeing the NIA case.
Challenging these High Court rulings, the MBBS graduate then approached the Supreme Court. Her petition contends that the Madras High Court effectively created an exception to the well-established legal principle against withholding academic certificates. She argued that this decision unfairly made her bear the consequences of criminal proceedings in which she is not an accused party. The Supreme Court, after hearing the submissions, issued notice to the Central government and the college, seeking their responses to the graduate's plea.
The petitioner was represented before the Supreme Court by advocates Rakesh Kumar, Harshit Sharma, Rupesh Kumar Sinha, Sataroop Dass, Aashish Kumar, and Tamanna Jangra. Advocates J Jawaharlal, Meghna Kumar, Sayyam Maheshwari, and Mayank Kshirsagar appeared for the respondents.