Major Relief for Students: Lahore High Court Orders Two Private Medical Colleges to Refund Excess Fees by November 29

The Lahore High Court has delivered a significant ruling in Pakistan's private medical education sector, directing two private medical and dental colleges to adjust or refund excess tuition fees collected from students. The institutions must implement the order within 30 working days from October 30, with November 29 emerging as the key compliance date.

Justice Khalid Ishaq dismissed three petitions filed by private medical institutions challenging the fee regulations of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC), while allowing 12 connected petitions filed by students and their guardians seeking enforcement of the prescribed fee limits. The judgment reinforces the council's authority to scrutinise private medical college tuition fees and establishes that institutional financial autonomy operates within a wider framework of public responsibility.

The most significant aspect of the ruling is the financial accountability it places on private institutions. Colleges may propose fee increases based on their operating expenses and educational requirements, but they must provide evidence to justify those demands. In medical education, the balance between institutional financial independence and public accountability has now become a central issue of judicial scrutiny.

How the fee dispute reached the court

The dispute originates from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2026, and the regulatory framework governing medical and dental education. On April 28, 2026, PM&DC initially fixed annual tuition fees for MBBS and BDS programmes at Rs1.8 million. A 5 per cent increase was permitted for the 2026 academic session, while subsequent increases from the 2026 session were linked to Consumer Price Index inflation.

On October 6, 2026, another notification capped annual tuition fees at Rs1.89 million for the 2026–26 session. Private institutions subsequently raised concerns about their actual operating expenses and educational requirements, prompting further examination of their financial records and proposed fee structures.

On March 11, PM&DC issued another notification prescribing revised fee ceilings for different categories of institutions. Colleges that submitted audited financial statements and fee justifications were assessed separately from those whose accounts had verification problems or which had not applied for fee enhancement.

The objective was to establish a regulated fee structure while recognising genuine institutional financial requirements. A specially constituted Fee Justification Committee examined financial records and assessed permissible tuition fees and excess collections. The dispute eventually reached the Lahore High Court after private institutions challenged the regulator's authority and students sought judicial enforcement of the prescribed limits.

The central legal question: Can private colleges determine tuition fees independently?

The institutions argued that the PM&DC Act did not expressly authorise the council to directly determine or cap tuition fees. They also maintained that fee regulation interfered with their constitutional freedom to conduct business, relying on Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution.

Justice Khalid Ishaq rejected these arguments. The court interpreted Sections 9, 20 and 47 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2026, together and concluded that the council's regulatory authority emerged from their combined effect. The power was not created independently through subordinate regulations or administrative notifications.

Section 20(8) requires private medical and dental colleges to submit financial statements, proposed fee structures and supporting justifications to the council. The court rejected the argument that this requirement was merely administrative paperwork. If PM&DC could not examine financial information, question unjustified proposals or modify proposed fees, the statutory requirement would become meaningless.

The court also clarified that publicly declaring tuition fees under Section 20(7) does not make an institution's proposed fee structure immune from regulatory scrutiny. PM&DC can examine the financial justification and approve, modify or reject proposed charges where necessary.

Financial records placed two colleges under scrutiny

The financial figures presented before the court were particularly significant. According to the judgment, University Medical and Dental College, Faisalabad, reported annual income of Rs5.099 billion in 2026 and a profit of Rs378.659 million. The Fee Justification Committee recorded a refund obligation of Rs841,317 per affected student for excess collections.

FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, reported annual income of Rs1.867 billion and a profit of Rs111.941 million in 2026. The committee's records identified Rs741,802 per affected student as the amount liable to be refunded.

The March 11 notification prescribed separate annual tuition fee ceilings for the institutions. University Medical and Dental College, Faisalabad, was assigned a ceiling of Rs2,026,341, while FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, received a ceiling of Rs2,052,099.

These figures demonstrate that the regulatory framework did not automatically impose identical fee limits on both institutions. Their financial circumstances were considered separately. The important principle is that fee regulation should recognise legitimate institutional requirements while demanding evidence to support proposed charges.

However, the total refund liability cannot be calculated from the available information. The number of affected students, the relevant payment periods and any previous account adjustments must be established before an accurate institutional liability can be determined.

Profitability and educational standards must be considered together

The court did not completely dismiss the constitutional freedom of private medical colleges to conduct business. Article 18 protects freedom of trade, profession and business, but that freedom is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the public interest, particularly in sectors connected to public health and human life.

At the same time, the judgment established an important balance. PM&DC must consider legitimate institutional expenses when determining permissible tuition fees. Affordability alone cannot justify a fee limit that prevents colleges from maintaining legally required educational standards.

This observation has broader implications for private medical education. Colleges need sufficient financial resources to pay teaching staff, maintain laboratories, provide clinical training, operate hospital facilities and sustain other educational services. However, simply referring to these expenses cannot automatically justify every proposed increase. Institutions must demonstrate how their financial demands relate to actual expenditure, available resources and prescribed academic standards.

Institutional participation also influenced the judgment

Another significant aspect of the case was the institutions' previous participation in the regulatory process. The court recorded that the colleges had submitted audited financial statements and sought tuition fee enhancement through the Pakistan Association of Medical Institutions (PAMI).

The petitioner institutions participated in the sixth meeting of the Fee Justification Committee on February 18. Before that, PAMI had withdrawn its related petition from the Islamabad High Court on February 4.

The court considered this participation important. Institutions that had used the regulatory process to seek higher fee limits could not easily reverse their position and subsequently argue that PM&DC had no authority over the matter.

The constitutional equality argument under Article 25 also failed. The court observed that medical and dental institutions operate under a distinct legislative and regulatory framework involving clinical training, institutional recognition and professional qualifications. However, it clarified that regulatory authorities cannot treat institutions with materially different financial circumstances arbitrarily or discriminatorily. Such conduct remains open to judicial review.

Student protection extends beyond financial refunds

The judgment also addressed complaints that some students had faced retaliatory or prejudicial treatment after questioning the enforcement of their legal rights.

The Lahore High Court directed the institutions not to subject litigating students to discriminatory or retaliatory treatment. It further stated that students experiencing unlawful treatment could approach the court for contempt proceedings.

This direction matters because financial rights cannot be effectively protected if students face academic disadvantages or institutional pressure for raising legitimate complaints. Implementing a refund order is one responsibility; protecting students while they pursue that relief is another.

The real test will be compliance

The judgment represents a significant victory for students. Twelve student and guardian petitions were allowed, three institutional petitions were dismissed, and PM&DC's authority to regulate tuition fees received judicial endorsement. The court also established a time-bound obligation for adjusting or refunding excess charges.

However, the practical impact will depend on what happens next. Three developments deserve attention: whether both colleges identify all affected students and complete individual account adjustments; whether PM&DC maintains a transparent and consistent procedure for examining future fee proposals; and whether institutions protect students from administrative or academic retaliation.

Years of observing organisations have taught me that accountability is measured less by public statements than by repeated institutional behaviour. In this case, the judgment is the initial signal. The real evidence will emerge through payment records, revised fee notices and students' individual experiences.

Trust between educational institutions and regulators will strengthen only when financial information is transparent and regulations are applied consistently. November 29 is therefore more than a calendar deadline. It is an opportunity to establish whether judicial instructions will move beyond legal documents and reach students' actual bank accounts and fee records.

The next important question is whether PM&DC applies the principles of this judgment consistently to fee proposals from other private medical colleges. If it does, the case could influence financial accountability across Pakistan's private medical education sector rather than remaining limited to two institutions.

Source: Rana Yasif, The Express Tribune, November 7, 2026. The report cites the detailed Lahore High Court judgment and Fee Justification Committee records.