A bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor partly allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by students of a privately-run veterinary institution challenging the imposition of tuition fees for the internship period. The court observed that once all academic requirements of the course are completed and students are granted provisional registration, the compulsory internship commences. During this period, interns are expected to perform full-time professional duties — including emergency and clinical responsibilities — under supervision as provisionally registered veterinary practitioners, and not merely as passive trainees. (LaWGiCo)

The High Court underscored that the VCI Regulations clearly contemplate the payment of an internship allowance to students during the internship period. Therefore, charging tuition fees in addition to expecting interns to render professional services amounts to indirect deprivation of statutorily mandated compensation, and constitutes unjust enrichment by the private institution. In the court’s view, such practices are contrary to both the spirit and scheme of the regulatory framework governing veterinary education in India. (LaWGiCo)

Rejecting the institution’s argument that autonomy entitles it to levy fees as part of its fee structure, the court observed that institutional autonomy cannot extend to practices that lead to exploitation or profiteering at the expense of students who are fulfilling compulsory professional obligations. The bench also noted that the affiliated university historically did not charge tuition fees during internship — reinforcing the conclusion that the fee demand was irregular and unjustified. (LaWGiCo)

While the court restrained the college from charging tuition fees for the internship period and directed the refund of any fees already collected for that period within three months, it declined to issue directions for fixation or enhancement of the internship allowance itself. The bench clarified that in the absence of statutory rates or policy guidelines, judicial determination of an appropriate stipend amount falls outside the scope of judicial review, leaving such issues to the relevant authorities or regulators. (LaWGiCo)

This landmark ruling is expected to have wider implications for fee structures in professional education, particularly in regulated courses where compulsory internships form an integral component of the curriculum and professional qualification. Legal experts believe the judgment reinforces regulatory intent to balance institutional autonomy with protections against student exploitation. (LaWGiCo)