Karnataka State Law University’s Fee Hike Circular Quashed for Want of Statutory Authority; Refund Ordered to Students: Karnataka High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice R. Devdas set aside the circular issued by the Karnataka State Law University on July 2, 2025, which had increased registration fees for students of both three-year and five-year law programs. The Court held that the University was not legally empowered to impose or collect fees without the backing of statutes, regulations, or ordinances under the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009. It directed the University to refund the excess fees collected from all students, including those not party to the case, within two months from the receipt of the order. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed, and the circular was quashed.
The batch of writ petitions was filed by law students enrolled in various colleges affiliated to the Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi, challenging the KSLU circular dated July 2, 2025. The petitioners, including Pranava K N and others, Priyanka N, and Gangadhara C and Dileepa M A, contended that the University’s decision to enhance the annual administrative fee from Rs. 3,700 to Rs. 8,580—an increase of 128.8%—was arbitrary, unreasonable, and without statutory backing.
The petitioners argued that Section 5 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009 empowers the University to demand and receive fees only in accordance with the provisions prescribed by Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances. As none had been enacted to govern fee determination, the circular lacked legal validity. They further invoked Article 265 of the Constitution of India, asserting that no fee or tax could be levied without authority of law. The petitioners maintained that any increase in fees must have a quid pro quo—services commensurate with the fee amount—which was absent in the present case.
The respondents submitted that the Academic Council of the University had duly approved the circular in its 37th meeting held on May 20, 2025, and that the Vice-Chancellor subsequently approved it. They argued that the University possessed the authority to fix fees under Sections 30, 33, and 34 of the Act, which empower the Syndicate and Academic Council to frame rules and regulations regarding courses, examinations, and fees. It was further contended that the students had accepted previous fee structures without objection, and the new circular was a continuation of established administrative practice.
Justice R. Devdas, after examining the statutory provisions and the arguments of both sides, observed that the core issue for consideration was "whether the impugned Circular dated 02.07.2025 issued by the respondent-University, enhancing the fee structure for registration of the students of the 5 years course as well as 3 years course, is valid in the eye of law." The Court recorded that although Section 5 of the KSLU Act empowered the University to demand and receive fees and other charges, "such levy and collection of fee should be provided for by the Statutes, Regulations or Ordinances."
The Judge recorded, "There being no such statutes providing for levy and collection of fees, the impugned Circular is not valid." He also cited the constitutional mandate under Article 265, which prohibits levy or collection of any tax or fee without the authority of law, observing that such principle extends to all monetary exactions by public authorities.
Justice Devdas further stated that the University's reliance on approvals from the Academic Council and the Vice-Chancellor could not substitute the requirement of a statutory framework. The Court noted that the power to collect or enhance fees must emanate from legally enacted rules and not from resolutions or administrative circulars. The judgment succinctly held that "no Statute, Regulation, or Ordinance prescribing such powers exists, and therefore the impugned circular is illegal and without authority of law."
The Court ordered, "The Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Circular dated 02.07.2025 bearing No. KSLU/REG/ACAD/ADMN-FEE/2025-26/720 issued by the respondent-University is hereby quashed and set aside."
"The excess fee collected by the respondent-University, having regard to the immediately previous Circular, shall be refunded to all the students, irrespective of whether such students are parties to these proceedings or not." Justice Devdas instructed that the refund process must be completed "as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The Court also disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. K.G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Shankara J. Sreedhara and Sri. Shashank J. Sreedhara, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, Sri. Girish Kumar, and Sri. Madhukar S., Advocates.
Case Title: Pranava K N & Others v. Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 23190, 23985, and 24257 of 2025 (EDN-RES)
Bench: Justice R. Devdas
