The Madras High Court has ruled against an MBBS graduate seeking the release of her educational certificates from Chettinad Academy of Research and Education. This decision follows the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) seizure of ₹1.13 crore paid for her tuition, citing allegations of Maoist funding.
Previously, a single judge had dismissed the student’s request for the issuance of her Course Completion and MBBS Degree Certificates without requiring repayment of the seized fees. On June 17, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan upheld the earlier decision, rejecting her appeal against the April 2024 ruling.
While the Court acknowledged that the MBBS graduate was not named as an accused in the investigation, it emphasized that she could not claim rights over funds allegedly linked to criminal activity. The ruling stated, “Although the appellant is not directly accused, she cannot assert an equitable right to benefit from the proceeds of a crime.”
The Court further noted that the student could petition the NIA court to seek the release of the seized funds. “The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and rightly protects the financial autonomy of the fifth respondent/college while leaving it open for the appellant to deposit the requisite fees anew and claim her certificates,” the Court concluded.
The graduate completed her five-year medical course and Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship, during which the sum of ₹1,13,70,500 was paid to the college as fees. The NIA’s investigation revealed that the funds were allegedly sourced through illegal means on behalf of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a banned terrorist entity.
More Read
Following a production-cum-seizure notice issued to the college by the NIA, the entire fee amount was seized, prompting the college to withhold her certificates due to non-payment. The graduate contested the college’s actions in court, arguing that educational certificates should not be retained as security or treated like financial deposits under a general lien. She denied any involvement with terrorist organizations and highlighted the absence of criminal charges against her.
The college, represented by Senior Advocate MS Krishnan and Advocate T Balaji, argued that it was unfairly deprived of the fees and could not be expected to incur a financial loss due to the seizure. The institution maintained that it had already provided education services using its resources and infrastructure.
The Court observed that while educational certificates are not typically withheld for dues recovery, the case’s unique circumstances involving national security and criminal asset seizure warranted a different approach. It remarked, “The case at hand presents an extraordinary and intricate factual matrix involving national security, terrorist funding, and criminal asset seizure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.”
More Read
The NIA chargesheet identified the appellant’s relatives, including her brother Tarun Kumar and uncle Pradyuman Sharma, as accused, though she was not personally charged. The Court held that her account with the college was legally in default once the NIA seized the fee amount.
The ruling emphasized that forcing the college to release her certificates without receiving legitimate payment would constitute a “gross miscarriage of equity and justice.”
The appellant was represented by Advocates Rakesh Kumar and TS Baskaran. Senior Central Government Standing Counsel V Sudha appeared for the Union of India and the National Medical Commission, while Advocate U Baranidharan represented the Tamil Nadu Medical Council.
