The wishy-washy response of officials to complaints about excessive fees at universities is drawing criticism

The Directorate of Higher Education’s mixed response to a complaint of illegal fee collection by private and government-aided colleges submitted to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell has drawn criticism from the petitioner and activists.

A complaint sent to the CM’s Cell on May 29 stated that several private and government-aided colleges were collecting additional amounts from students under various heads, including development fee, special fee, infrastructure fee, placement fee, endowment, laboratory maintenance and compulsory hostel fee. The practice was widespread in the state and contradicted the very essence of education as a fundamental right, the petition says.

The memorandum demanded that the government make it mandatory for all private and state-aided colleges to display the full fee structure approved by the government or the university they are affiliated to prominently on notice boards and also publish it on their websites.

The government, it said, should issue a circular clearly stating that no additional charges should be levied. Violations should be punished by de-recognition or de-affiliation of the offending institutions.

The reply, signed by R. Raman, Joint Director of Higher Education (Finance), under the “Summary of Action Taken” column, said: “I would like to inform you that the Government has taken a policy decision regarding the details of the above complaint.”

It was not clear what the government’s political decision was. “What are the policies? Can there be policies allowing excessive charges?” asks Prince Gajendra Babu, General Secretary of the State Platform for Common School System – Tamil Nadu (SPCSS-TN).

Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 clearly prohibited private schools from charging fees other than “the fee, charge or payment fixed by the competent authority”, he pointed out. In addition, there was the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fees) Act, 1992, which also prohibited the collection of capitation fees by educational institutions. Mr Prince argued that a response vaguely referring to a government policy decision without providing any detail defeats the very purpose of transparency.

“Parents fear the reaction of institutions and are reluctant to file complaints against excessive fees,” says S. Pandikumar, a petitioner who is also a lawyer. According to him, this was the main reason why institutions avoided such crimes.

The higher education department has failed to ensure compliance, either because the mechanism has become toothless due to corruption or political pressures, Dr added. Pandikumar.

Published – 7 Jul 2026 21:41 IST