The Madras High Court has refused to direct a private medical college in Chennai to issue course completion certificate to a Bihar native student since the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had appropriated her fees of ₹1.13 crore under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 after booking her brother and paternal uncle for having allegedly raised funds for the banned Maoists .

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed a writ appeal filed by the student after observing it presents “an extraordinary and intricate factual matrix involving national security, terrorist funding, and criminal asset seizure under the UAPA” and therefore, the college could not be directed to not hold a lien on educational certificates.

The Bench pointed out the student’s immediate family members had been charged by the NIA for being key operational masterminds who had raised extorted funds for a banned terrorist outfit and the investigation had revealed that the funds deposited into the account of the private medical college in Chennai were directly traceable back to the illegal terrorist funding.

“While it may be true that the appellant is not directly arrayed as an accused in her individual capacity, she cannot assert an equitable right to benefit from the fruits of a crime. The moment the NIA seized and appropriated the fee amount from the college, the appellant’s account with the institution legally defaulted to an unpaid status,” the Division Bench wrote.

It went on to state: “The fifth respondent, a private institution, has already utilized its resources, infrastructure, and faculty to train the appellant. Forcing the institution to release the certificates when it has effectively received zero clean currency for her education would be a gross miscarriage of equity and justice. In our firm view, the learned single judge rightly held that the fifth respondent college is not obligated to release the certificates until its rightful dues are reimbursed by clean, untainted means.”

The Bench also said if the appellant “maintains her absolute innocence and claims the funds were legitimate, her remedy lies in approaching the competent Special Court (for NIA cases) for the release of the seized funds. She cannot compel a private educational institution to take on the burden of litigation against the NIA to retrieve the fees paid by the appellant, which was appropriated.”

The Division Bench held the single judge, Justice S.M. Subramaniam, had passed a well reasoned order and had rightly protected the financial autonomy of private medical college while leaving it open for the appellant to deposit the requisite fees anew and claim her certificates. The Bench did not find any reason to interfere with the single judge’s order.