Bombay High Court Reviews Controversial Fee Proposal by ILS Law College

The Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU) has presented its case before the Bombay High Court against the fee proposal by the Indian Law Society’s (ILS) Law College, asserting that the college’s suggested fees for moot court activities were excessively high compared to actual expenditures. According to SPPU, ILS proposed a moot court fee of ₹7,000 per student, which would generate over ₹1.12 crore from its 1,600 students, while the actual amount spent on the activity was only ₹1.98 lakh.

This submission was made in response to the challenge by ILS Law College against SPPU’s decision to set the college’s ‘other fees’ at ₹4,340 for the academic year 2026-27, significantly lower than the approximately ₹37,000 previously charged. The case is being heard by Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan Dubash, who on Thursday, refused the college’s interim request to provisionally charge the higher pre-reduction fees, scheduling the next hearing for June 29.

The University’s Fee Fixation Committee (FFC) identified multiple discrepancies besides the moot court fees. For instance, the college proposed seminar and conference fees at ₹3,000 per student, totaling ₹48 lakh, against actual expenses of ₹14.52 lakh. Similarly, the proposed fee for training and placement was ₹4,000 per student, amounting to ₹64 lakh, while the real expenditure was ₹5.32 lakh. The Abhivyakti Law Journal fees were suggested at ₹990 per student, totaling ₹15.84 lakh, compared to an actual spend of ₹3.40 lakh. The FFC noted these as examples of numerous such inconsistencies.

The committee also questioned the methodology ILS used for calculating fees, particularly criticizing the failure to deduct government salary grants before determining student costs, an excessive 20% depreciation on assets, and an unexplained incentive of ₹4,799 per student not reflected in audited accounts. After considering the college’s written explanations, the FFC, on April 6, 2026, reduced most of the proposed fees, setting the other fees at ₹4,340. This decision, communicated to ILS on April 30, 2026, was rejected by the college, which demanded its withdrawal.

SPPU accuses ILS of lacking transparency and omitting significant details in its petition, including a written explanation submitted in June 2024 addressing the FFC’s concerns. The affidavit reveals that SPPU requested clarification on discrepancies in ILS’s balance sheet on June 29, 2024. However, the college’s Acting Principal, Dr. Deepa Paturkar, delayed the response till June 2, 2025, challenging several of the FFC’s findings.

Regarding the moot court expenses, ILS contended that the ₹1.98 lakh cited by FFC only covered direct aid to students participating in external moot courts, asserting that the total expenditure amounted to ₹10.07 lakh when all related activities were considered. Yet, even this figure does not match the proposed collection of ₹1.12 crore, which exceeds stated expenses by over eleven times.

The FFC’s letter also highlighted that the college’s financial statement for 2022-23 showed a net deficit of ₹4.68 crore, primarily due to a rent payment of ₹8.50 crore to the Indian Law Society. The committee suggested that if the rent was reduced to an allowable level of ₹80 lakh, the college would report a surplus of ₹3.02 crore on gross fee collections of ₹7.38 crore, indicating a substantial profit margin ‘at the cost of the students.’

In its defense, ILS argued that the rent was based on a government valuation of the campus at ₹484 crore, which justified the ₹8.50 crore rent as reasonable. Additionally, it cited the Indian Law Society’s advances of ₹29.54 crore to the college as evidence of financial backing. However, this perspective raises concerns that the college might significantly contribute to the Society’s income, with advances potentially derived from student fees.

SPPU maintains that under Section 101(7) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act 2016, the FFC’s decision is binding on the college, and ILS’s refusal to comply violates its affiliation terms. Consequently, the University seeks the dismissal of ILS’s petition with costs.