University Can't Withhold Student's Original Certificates To Recover Remaining Course Fees: Rajasthan High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi directed a medical university in Jaipur to immediately release the original educational certificates of a former MBBS student and held that documents submitted at the time of admission cannot be retained to compel payment of fees for the remaining course period. Granting relief to the student, whose transfer and migration certificates were withheld though required for examinations at a new college, the Court found no contractual or statutory basis allowing the institution to keep her records once she chose to discontinue the course. While leaving the university free to pursue lawful mechanisms for recovery of any alleged unpaid fees, the Court ordered that the student’s original certificates be handed over without delay.
The petitioner, a medical student admitted to the MBBS course at the respondent university in 2022, submitted her original Class 12 Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate at the time of admission. She completed the academic sessions 2022–23 and 2023–24 and paid fees for 2022–23, 2023–24 and 2024–25. Owing to health issues, she withdrew from the college and stopped attending classes. Her request for withdrawal of admission was declined. She later secured admission to another university for a new course beginning in 2025, which required submission of her original certificates for permitting her to appear in examinations scheduled from 05.12.2025.
The petitioner asserted that despite repeated requests, the university refused to release her documents, jeopardising her new admission. Photocopies of the essential certificates were placed on record. She relied upon decisions of various High Courts holding that educational institutions cannot retain a student's original certificates for recovery of pending dues.
The respondent university opposed the plea, citing clauses from the information booklet permitting retention of originals until completion of the course and affidavits executed by the petitioner and her parents acknowledging liability to pay full course fees. It argued that release of documents would impair its ability to recover fees for remaining academic years.
The Court recorded that the petitioner’s prayer was only for release of her original documents submitted at the time of admission, and that she had completed two academic years and paid fees for three sessions. The Court noted that the issue raised by the university pertained to recovery of remaining course fees, whereas the issue raised by the petitioner concerned the return of her certificates.
The Court stated: “In the considered opinion of this Court under no circumstances, both these issues can be said to be overlapping as a document deposited by a student solely for seeking admission in the course by no stretch of imagination can be retained as a tool to compel her to deposit the fee.” It further recorded that “Imposing such a condition would defeat the very object of furnishing the original documents by a student at the time of seeking admission, which is to ascertain and verify the documents and eligibility of that student and nothing more.”
The Court examined the counselling booklet relied on by the respondent and observed: “Perusal of the documents available on record reveals that there is no solitary condition which permits the respondent-university to withhold the documents of a student.” It added that the booklet clauses concerned procedures for admission and did not empower retention once a student wished to leave.
The Court analysed the affidavits executed by the student and her parents and stated: “Even affidavits executed by parent of the student or by the student specifically refers and empowers the institution to take all possible measures for recovery of the fee, but even those affidavits failed to give any unfettered right to the university to keep the documents so much so to prejudice and hamper the further career growth of a student.”
Further, the Court noted that the petitioner had already paid fees for three academic sessions despite studying for two and recorded: “Thus, there is no occasion whatsoever to not to release the documents of the petitioner solely for they being used as a measure to recover the balance fee of IVth and Vth year.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Islamic Academic Education and observed that while the institution may recover fees under applicable law, “nowhere authorized any institution to continue custody of the original documents of a student solely to recover the fee.” It additionally recorded that the information booklet relied upon by the university did not provide for such retention and that both the State and the Supreme Court recognise fee recovery mechanisms but not by forceful retention of documents.
The Court directed that “the documents viz. the Transfer Certificate of Class 12 and the Migration Certificate of Class 12 issued by the Board be forthwith released to the petitioner and not later than by tomorrow as the same are required to be submitted by her with the Pearl University, Delhi on or before 05.12.2025.” The application stands disposed of and recorded: “List the matter on 22.01.2026.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Punit Singhvi, Ms. Shradha Mehta, Mr. Ayush Singh, Mr. Ishan Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Kamalakar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Kalla, Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal, Mr. Angad Mirdha
Case Title: Eshita Gupta v. Jaipur National University & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7084/2024
Bench: Justice Anuroop Singhi
