Supreme Court’s Week: College Fees, Reservation Eligibility and Online Child Safety

Synopsis

In two days the Supreme Court made three big decisions. One said that the tuition fee for the professional course should be settled before making an admission and it should be changed in exceptional cases during the course. A second argued that there was no backward-class reservation when it came to conversion to Islam. A third acknowledged the right to access the internet as a human right, including of children and established a mechanism for the removal of child pornography from online platforms.

On Oct. 14 and 15, three benches of the Supreme Court handed down rulings affecting students, public employment and Internet safety. These are summarised below from the judgments as reported; readers should read the full texts.

Highest fees to be charged during the mid-course

A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe in Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College v. State of West Bengal (2026 INSC 1120) held that it was a basic duty of a student to know at the threshold the financial burden they take when he/she enters a four or five-year professional programme. Only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. an unexpected rise in expenditure, shall there be variation during the course.

The college had increased the batch's tuition by about 37.5% from the second-semester and imposed a development fee in reliance on a clause in their prospectus which stated that they would act in line with government decisions.

The increase was upheld by one judge of the Calcutta High Court, but a Division Bench ruled that the revised fee would only be applicable to students appearing from the date of the notification and refunds or adjustment would be made accordingly.

The Supreme Court disagreed with some of that reasoning, but approved its final directions. All students who registered prior to October 16, 2023 are to be refunded or adjusted, and students who registered starting October 16, 2023 will be required to pay the new fee.

One analysis had the court shoulder the blame for the delay of seven years in revising fees by the State and its fee-fixation committee.

The conversion of the reservation, which was completed on October 15

In Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sameer Ahmed (2026 INSC 1129), Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar affirmed the Madras High Court ruling that set aside an order issued by the government of Tamil Nadu granting Backward Class Muslim certificates to those who had converted after gaining admission to the Madras Christian College.

The court stated that such a conversion would not ipso facto give the person a status in any of the seven notified Backward Class Muslim community in the State.

The bench further noted that “mere being of a caste cannot be a sufficient proof of social backwardness”. It agreed that if a person converted back to the Hindu religion, the jurisdiction to determine entitlement must be done independently and for each case on a fact-specific basis. The State had contended that the order only acknowledged backward class status and not give any additional benefits.

Online child safety

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026 INSC 1149) said that access to internet is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) which the children enjoy and blanket ban on access to internet is not a solution. The bench also gave directions on how to identify, delete and report child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse content. We have a separate explainer on the ruling. A compliance affidavit is due with the Union at the next hearing on December 10, 2026.

The three rulings explained

The fee judgment provides a basis for prospective students to have cost certainty. The judgment in the case clarifies a question of mutual connection between backwardness and a religious order, as specified in Article 16(4). The obligations under the online-safety order are imposed on platforms and the Union.

What remains open

One analysis highlighted this aspect in the fee ruling: that it does not establish an automatic refund right for every dispute throughout the country. The conversion ruling preserves the “case by case” approach for reconversion cases. The online-safety order does not specify exactly how the design will be realized, but these details will be determined by the Union.