This civil appeal challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, which had upheld a Single Bench’s order directing the Government of India to pay subvention amounts to Sri Devraj Urs Medical College for students admitted up to the academic year 2002–03 for the entirety of their 5-year course. The subvention scheme was originally established via an interim order dated August 11, 1995, during the proceedings of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, but the scheme was effectively nullified when the 11-Judge Bench delivered its final judgment on October 31, 2002. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the subvention scheme died its own death upon the 2002 judgment and that the college failed to plead or place on record any data showing that its revenues fell short of expenses, making payments beyond the academic year 2002–03 legally impermissible.
- Nature of Proceedings: Civil appeal arising from a writ appeal judgment of the High Court of Karnataka.
- Background of the Dispute:
- An interim order dated August 11, 1995, in M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka introduced a subvention scheme where the Central Government provided financial subvention (Rs. 5,000 per annum per student) to eliminate capitation fees.
- On October 31, 2002, the 11-Judge Bench in M.A. Pai Foundation finally overruled the prior Unni Krishnan scheme and declared it unconstitutional.
- The respondent-college sought subvention payments for students admitted in the 2002–03 academic year for their full 5-year duration, which the High Court previously granted.
- Key Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court:
- Retrospectivity of Judgments: Unless a judgment of the Apex Court explicitly states it is prospective, all declarations of law are retrospective in application (V. George v. State of Kerala).
- Demise of Interim Schemes: An interim scheme or executive instruction formulated during pending litigation expires or “dies its own death” when the final substantive judgment is rendered declaring the framework unconstitutional.
- Pleading Financial Hardship: Under the principles in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, a party seeking relief based on economic factors or profiteering must strictly plead and prove facts with supporting evidence in its writ petition or counter-affidavit; in the absence of data showing revenue shortfalls, claims for financial subventions cannot be sustained.
- Final Outcome: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court orders to the extent that they directed the payment of subvention amounts for the entire 5-year duration for students admitted in the 2002–03 academic year.
2026 INSC 799
Government of India & Anr. v. Sri Devraj Urs Medical College (D.O.J. 04.08.2026)
