Article 21 & Right to Education | MBBS Student Cannot Be Denied Exam Appearance Due to Fee Arrears : AP HC

In a significant ruling balancing academic rights and institutional obligations, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Dr NTR University of Health Sciences to permit a final-year MBBS student to appear for supplementary examinations despite outstanding tuition fee dues. The Court emphasized that while fee obligations must be met, denying a student the opportunity to write exams violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, particularly when interim orders had already allowed attendance in classes.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Asha Sri Murapala, a 23-year-old MBBS student at NRI Medical College and General Hospital, was admitted under Category C. During her third year, she was barred from attending classes and practical sessions due to alleged non-payment of tuition fees. Challenging this action, she filed W.P. No. 22030 of 2024 on 01.10.2024, seeking directions to allow her to attend classes. The Court granted interim relief, permitting her to attend Third Year First Semester classes until further orders.

Key Facts

• Admission: Petitioner admitted to MBBS course under Category C at NRI Medical College

• Fee Dispute: College alleged non-payment of tuition fees for academic years 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25

• Interim Order: High Court directed college to allow petitioner to attend Third Year First Semester classes (W.P. No. 22030 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024)

• Examination Timeline:

  • Petitioner passed Third Year Professional MBBS examinations

  • Scheduled to appear for Final MBBS Part-II (CBME) Supplementary Examinations from 02.07.2026 to 22.07.2026

  • Examination notification issued by University on 01.06.2026 with cut-off date for applications: 15.06.2026

  • College submitted list of candidates to University, marking petitioner as "not registered"

  • Petitioner approached college for examination application form and fee payment, but was denied

Procedural History

• 01.10.2024: W.P. No. 22030 of 2024 filed seeking direction to attend classes

• 01.10.2024: Interim order passed allowing petitioner to attend Third Year First Semester classes

• Post-Interim Order: Petitioner attended classes, appeared for Third Year Professional MBBS exams, and was declared passed

• 01.06.2026: University issued examination notification for Final MBBS Part-II (CBME) Supplementary Examinations

• 15.06.2026: Last date for submission of examination applications

• Pre-02.07.2026: Petitioner approached college for examination application form, but was denied

• 22.06.2026: College submitted list of candidates to University, excluding petitioner

• Post-15.06.2026: University issued hall tickets to eligible registered candidates only

• 2026: Petitioner filed W.P. No. 16948 of 2026 seeking direction to allow her to appear for exams

• 07.07.2026: Present judgment passed

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• Relied on the interim orders in W.P. No. 22030 of 2024, which allowed her to attend classes

• Contended that denial of examination application form despite subsisting interim orders is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21

• Cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indian School, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan ((2021) 10 SCC 517) to argue that right to education cannot be denied on technical grounds

• Highlighted that her examination is scheduled on 08.07.2026, leaving no time for procedural delays

For the Respondents

• Submitted that the University issued examination notification on 01.06.2026 with a cut-off date of 15.06.2026 for submission of applications

• Argued that the Principal of NRI Medical College furnished the list of candidates, marking the petitioner as "not registered"

• Contended that examination applications must be submitted online, and there is no provision for physical submission

• Submitted that the petitioner failed to remit tuition fees despite repeated reminders, and thus, is not entitled to a hall ticket

• Relied on the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 847 of 2023 to argue that fee defaults disentitle students from appearing for exams

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• A writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' action in denying her the right to submit the examination application as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21

• Directions to the respondents to:

  • Permit her to submit the examination application by paying the prescribed fee

  • Issue her a hall ticket for the Final MBBS Part-II (CBME) Supplementary Examinations scheduled from 02.07.2026

  • Allow her to appear for the examination scheduled on 08.07.2026

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a medical student, who was permitted to attend classes under interim orders of the High Court, could be denied the right to appear for examinations on the ground of outstanding tuition fee dues, particularly when the examination schedule was imminent and the cut-off date for applications had lapsed.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Constitutional Rights: Denial of examination rights violates Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty), which includes the right to education

• Interim Orders: The subsisting interim orders in W.P. No. 22030 of 2024 allowed her to attend classes, implying she should be allowed to appear for exams

• Supreme Court Precedent: Cited Indian School, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan ((2021) 10 SCC 517), where the Court held that educational institutions cannot deny students the right to appear for exams on technical grounds

• Urgency: Her examination was scheduled for 08.07.2026, leaving no time for procedural formalities

For the Respondents

• Procedural Compliance: Examination applications must be submitted online by 15.06.2026; no provision for physical submission

• Fee Default: Petitioner failed to remit tuition fees for 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 despite reminders

• College Discretion: The Principal of NRI Medical College submitted the list of candidates, marking the petitioner as "not registered"

• Precedent: Relied on Writ Appeal No. 847 of 2023, where the Division Bench held that fee defaulters are not entitled to appear for exams

The Court's Analysis

The Court carefully balanced the petitioner's right to education against the institution's right to recover dues. Key observations include:

1. Interim Orders and Academic Progress:

   "The petitioner was allowed to attend the classes for Third Year First Semester until further orders by virtue of the interim orders granted in W.P.No.22030 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024. After completion of the academic programme and completion of classes, the petitioner had appeared for the Third Year Professional MBBS examinations conducted by 3rd respondent University and she was declared passed."

   The Court noted that the petitioner had complied with academic requirements and passed her Third Year Professional MBBS examinations under the protection of interim orders. Denying her the right to appear for final examinations would nullify the effect of the interim relief granted earlier.

2. Right to Education vs. Fee Recovery:The Court acknowledged that while fee recovery is a legitimate concern, it cannot override the fundamental right to education. The respondents' argument that the petitioner failed to submit the examination application online by 15.06.2026 was procedural, whereas the petitioner's right to appear for exams was substantive.

3. Urgency and Practical Considerations:The Court observed that the examination was scheduled to begin on 02.07.2026, and the petitioner's specific exam was on 08.07.2026. Any delay in permitting her to appear would irreparably prejudice her academic career, whereas the fee recovery could be addressed separately.

4. Distinguishing Precedents:The Court distinguished the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 847 of 2023, noting that the present case involved subsisting interim orders that had already allowed the petitioner to attend classes and pass her Third Year Professional MBBS exams. The earlier judgment did not account for such interim protections.

5. Balancing Equities:The Court held that equity favors the petitioner in this case. While the fee dues must be recovered, the right to appear for examinations - a one-time opportunity - could not be sacrificed on procedural grounds.

The Verdict

The Court partially allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:

1. Examination Rights:

   • Respondent No. 3 (Dr NTR University of Health Sciences) is directed to receive the examination fee from the petitioner forthwith and allow her to write the examination scheduled on 08.07.2026

   • Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (University and College) are directed to allow the petitioner to appear for the ongoing Final MBBS Part-II (CBME) Supplementary Examinations commencing from 02.07.2026

2. Fee Recovery:

   • The petitioner is not absolved from paying the tuition fee dues for academic years 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25

   • The petitioner must remit the tuition fee to the respondent-college within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the order (07.07.2026)

3. Costs:

   • No order as to costs

4. Miscellaneous Applications:

   • All pending miscellaneous applications stand closed

What This Means For Similar Cases

Right to Education Prevails Over Procedural Technicalities

This judgment reinforces that educational institutions cannot deny students the right to appear for examinations on procedural grounds, especially when:

• The student has complied with academic requirements under interim court orders

• The examination schedule is imminent, leaving no time for procedural formalities

• The denial would irreparably prejudice the student's academic career

Practitioners should argue that procedural defaults (e.g., late fee payment, missed deadlines) cannot override substantive rights when the student has demonstrated academic progress under court protection.

Fee Recovery Must Be Separated From Academic Rights

• Fee disputes and academic rights must be decoupled. Institutions can recover dues through separate legal proceedings but cannot deny examination rights as a coercive measure

• The Court's direction to pay fees within three months while allowing exams demonstrates that fee recovery can coexist with academic progression

Interim Orders Create Substantive Rights

• Interim orders granting attendance or academic participation create substantive rights that cannot be unilaterally revoked by institutions

• Institutions must honor interim orders even if they conflict with internal policies or deadlines

• Students can rely on interim protections to argue for examination rights, even if fee disputes remain unresolved

Online Procedures Must Accommodate Equitable Exceptions

• While online submission deadlines are important, institutions must provide equitable exceptions when:

  • The student has complied with academic requirements under court orders

  • The examination is imminent, leaving no time for procedural compliance

  • The denial would cause irreparable harm to the student's career

Practitioners should argue that rigid adherence to online procedures without equitable exceptions violates principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees.