In a petition, private medical colleges sought uniform fees across all quotas except NRI students, arguing that charging different fees for students under the convenor and management quotas amounted to unconstitutional cross-subsidisation.
Published Jan 21, 2026 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 21, 2026 | 9:52 AM
Representative image.
Synopsis: A Telangana High Court ruling allowing private medical and dental colleges to charge a uniform fee across most admission quotas has triggered concern among health professionals that it could make medical education unaffordable for underprivileged students. The court accepted private colleges’ argument that charging different fees for different quotas amounts to unconstitutional cross-subsidisation, but doctors’ associations noted that it could mean a sharp rise in fees for State-controlled convenor quota seats.
A ruling by the Telangana High Court in favour of managements of private medical and dental colleges in the State, seeking uniform tuition fees for students admitted under all quotas, has raised alarm bells among doctors.
The Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association (HRDA) termed the 2 December 2025 order a “strategic” assault on merit-based medical education, one that puts access for lower and middle-class aspirants in jeopardy in favour of private colleges’ profits.
Unlike State-run medical colleges, where all seats are filled through centralised counselling based entirely on NEET merit, private medical colleges are usually allowed around 40 to 50 percent of seats to be filled under the management quota and the NRI quota. The remaining seats, called the convenor quota, are controlled by the State.
The State Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) prescribes fees for convenor quota seats, while individual college managements decide fees for the management quota.
Management quota seats usually cost several times more in tuition fees. For instance, students joining MBBS and postgraduate courses respectively in private colleges under the management quota would have to pay approximately ₹11.55 lakh to ₹15 lakh and ₹22 to ₹24 lakh per year.
In contrast, seats under the convenor quota cost around ₹60,000 per year for MBBS and ₹7.75 lakh for postgraduate courses.
In a petition, private medical colleges argued that this disparity in fees amounted to the subsidisation of one section of students by another, which it said was in opposition to previous Supreme Court rulings that viewed such cross-subsidisation as unconstitutional.
The High Court, finding merit in the argument, directed all private medical and dental colleges to adopt a uniform fee structure.
Telangana’s 29 private medical colleges collectively offered an estimated 5,150 undergraduate MBBS seats in the latest academic year.
In 2017, the Telangana Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Association (TPMDCMA) filed a petition seeking uniform fees across all categories except NRI students, arguing that the existing system amounts to unconstitutional cross-subsidisation.
The association told the court that the “differential fee structure fixed for competent authority and management quota seats falls foul of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that cross subsidisation of education by charging higher fees from one category of students to subsidise the education of another category is unconstitutional.”
It contended that “charging higher fees from one category to subsidise another undermines institutional autonomy and affects the quality of medical education.”
The petition also cited procedural issues. “Despite clear Supreme Court rulings, the Telangana government has continued to notify differential fee structures, often at the last minute and close to counselling deadlines. This leaves colleges with little time to legally challenge the decisions,” it said.
The colleges argued that “artificially low fees directly affect teaching standards, infrastructure investment, and hospital facilities attached to medical colleges. This would ultimately impact the quality of doctors graduating from these institutions and have wider consequences for public healthcare.”
According to the petition, colleges were forced to accept differential fees “having regard to various factors which cannot be enumerated; however, the members have been protesting the same.”
They further alleged that “the modus operandi adopted by Respondent No. 1 (Principal Secretary, Health Department, Telangana) is to issue relevant notifications or orders on the verge of expiry of time schedules fixed by MCI and DCI, as the case may be, effectively stalling any serious challenge to their actions and making the whole process a mockery.”
A single-judge Bench comprising Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, in its order, cited precedents set by Supreme Court rulings in cases such as TM A Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka, Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs State of Karnataka, and PA Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra to find merit in the petitioner’s arguments.
“Since cross-subsidy of fee payable by one class of students by the other is unconstitutional and thus impermissible,” the order states.
“AFRC, while calling for applications for recommending a fee structure, and the State Government, while notifying the fee structure, shall not call for or notify a differential fee structure for different classes of seats, whether called ‘A’ or ‘B’ categories or otherwise.”
The judgment directed that “the fee chargeable from every student admitted to a specific course of study in a specific discipline in each private unaided educational institution shall reflect the per capita cost of such education.”
For the NRI quota, the court permitted flexibility, stating that “AFRC may recommend and the State Government notify a higher fee for students admitted to 15 percent of the sanctioned intake in each course of study in each private unaided educational institution, presently categorised as NRI or NRI-sponsored.”
The court further mandated that excess fees collected from NRI students “shall be deposited by the private educational institution in a separate account to be employed for the benefit of students from economically weaker sections of society.”
The HRDA has alleged that the petition is a strategic move to eliminate affordable medical seats under the guise of an “innocent reform”.
“The push for a uniform fee across all categories is not an innocent reform, but a strategic move aimed at eliminating affordable Convener Quota seats, thereby converting merit-based medical education into a privilege reserved only for the affluent,” it said in a statement.
“Any move towards a uniform or common fee structure without adequate protection of the Convener Quota will impose an unbearable financial burden on aspiring students and parents, especially from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds.”
The association said the move would “effectively exclude poor and middle-class students from medical education, accelerate the commercialisation of medical seats, and adversely affect the future of public healthcare by restricting diversity and social representation in the medical profession”.
“Their intention is clear. They will not bring B category (management) fees down to A category (State convenor quota) levels because that would reduce profits. Instead, they will raise A category fees closer to B category fees,” President Dr Karthik Nagula of the HRDA told South First.
“For instance, if the B category fee is ₹23 lakh, they may fix a uniform fee of around ₹20 lakh. They will reduce B category fees slightly and sharply increase A category fees.”
The impact of the ruling would create a situation where the economic burden would be most acutely felt by students eligible under the Convener Quota, Dr Nagula said.
“In a private medical college with 100 seats, 50 percent are A category seats, and 35 percent are B category management seats. The remaining 15 percent of NRI quota seats are fully paid seats,” he explained.
“By fixing a single uniform fee of, say, ₹20 lakh for both A and B categories, the financial burden will shift disproportionately to students admitted under the Convener Quota.”
He also dismissed arguments that students unable to pay the revised fee structure could simply opt for State-run colleges.
“Every year, around three lakh candidates appear for NEET PG, but there are only around 74,000 seats. Nearly two lakh aspirants are left without a seat every year. Not everyone can get a government seat,” he said.
“Middle-class students, open category students, and even reserved category students may miss out because the reservation is limited. It is not true that students can simply rely on government colleges. Many students with decent ranks end up in Convener Quota seats in private colleges.”
The AFRC defended its process, stating that “fees are fixed based on the actual expenditure incurred by institutions for teaching, non-teaching staff, and maintenance”.
It said the process “involves a thorough scrutiny of audited financial statements and balance sheets by Chartered Accountants”.
The committee acknowledged that “expenditure varies between institutions due to location (urban versus rural), student intake, and faculty ratios”.
However, it argued that the association had earlier sought favourable fee notifications and filed the current petition “with oblique motives to reopen settled issues after that previous order was struck down by the Court”.
Meanwhile, the HRDA made an urgent appeal to the Telangana government, noting with concern that “private medical college associations are selectively interpreting the order while ignoring earlier Division Bench judgments and well-settled constitutional principles”.
“Medical education is a public good, not a commercial commodity. Any policy or legal interpretation that undermines affordability today will irreparably damage the healthcare system tomorrow,” it said in a statement.
The association stated that “communications and proceedings emerging after the said order, including those from statutory bodies, are already creating confusion, uncertainty, and fear among students and parents”.
Dr Karthik Nagula urged the government to appeal before the Division Bench and clearly state that the judgment is incorrect.
“Earlier Division Bench guidelines have consistently held that Convener Quota fees must remain distinct and should not be disturbed,” he told South First.
“The government must speak for middle-class and lower-class medical students. It should not align itself with private management associations.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
