Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by law students under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a circular issued by the Karnataka State Law University(respondent-University), enhancing the fee payable by students, of the 5 years course as well as 3 years course, for academic year 2025-2026, a Single Judge Bench of R. Devdas, J., held that respondent-University was entitled to demand fees subject to its sanction by the statutes, regulations or ordinance which was absent in the present case.
The Court, accordingly, quashed and set aside the said circular and directed the respondent-University to refund the excess fee collected pursuant to such circulation.
The said circular was approved by the Academic Council and the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University which empowered it to demand and receive fees and other charges and to determine the fees and other charges payable for affiliation of new colleges or institution.
Prior to the said circular, the respondent-University was levying and collecting fees and charges at the rate of Rs 3,700 from every enrolled student. However, after the circulation, the fee was enhanced by 128.8 per cent.
The issue involved in the case at hand was whether the impugned Circular 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?
Considering Section 5 of the Karnataka State Law University Act 2009, the Court clarified that although the provision empowered the respondent-University to demand and receive fees, however, such levy and collection of fees should be provided for by the statutes, regulations or ordinances. Further, the Court noted that the respondent-University did not place any martial on record substantiating the enactment of such statutes, regulations or ordinances in the matter of levy and collection of fees and other charges. Therefore, the Court observed that the said circular was not valid.
The Court, thus, allowed the petition and quashed the said circular. Further, the Court directed the respondent-University to refund the excess fee collected regarding the immediately previous Circular, irrespective of if such students were parties in the present case, within two months.
[Pranava v. Karnataka State Law University., WP No. 23190 of 2025(EDN-RES), decided on 25-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: K.G. Raghavan, Sr. Counsel
For the Respondents: Girish Kumar, Advocate and Madhukar S., Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
