Jaipur: The Rajasthan Assembly witnessed heated exchanges and uproar on Wednesday over the collection of a “consultation fee” of Rs 1,000 allegedly being charged from students in state universities and colleges, with Opposition members accusing the government of irregularities and lack of transparency.
Congress MLA from Shahpura, Manish Yadav, raised the issue in the House and accused the government of allowing unauthorised and arbitrary fee collection from students over several years. During Question Hour, he questioned the legality and purpose of the so-called “discussion fee”, alleging that it had been collected by universities since the 2016–17 academic session in violation of established rules and without statutory backing.
He cited Rajrishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Mohanlal Sukhadia University and Rajasthan University, alleging that former vice-chancellors had imposed the fee without proper authorisation and in contravention of existing provisions governing university finances.
Responding to the question, Higher Education Minister Prem Chand Bairwa informed the House that the fee had been collected by Rajrishi Bhartrihari Matsya University amounting to Rs 22.16 crore between 2018–19 and 2024–25, Mohanlal Sukhadia University collected Rs 43.16 crore between 2020–21 and 2024–25, and Rajasthan University collected Rs 156.18 crore between 2017–18 and 2024–25. In total, around Rs 223 crore was collected from approximately 22.5 lakh students, which, according to the minister, was utilised for examination-related purposes and associated academic activities.
Manish Yadav strongly objected to the explanation and questioned how the fee could be used for examination purposes when separate examination fees were already being collected from students. He demanded full transparency and accountability regarding the utilisation of the funds.
“How many counselling centres were set up? How many students received guidance or counselling? Where exactly was this money spent? A detailed account must be presented in the House,” he said.
He also alleged that there was no provision under the University Act to charge such a fee, particularly from private students, and accused the government of failing to provide clarity on the utilisation and legal basis of the collected funds.
Leader of Opposition Tika Ram Jully also accused the government of misleading the Assembly and providing inconsistent responses on the issue.
“You are reading an order, not the Act. Under which law are you charging this fee? The government’s replies to earlier questions have been contradictory,” Jully said, questioning the legality of the fee collection.
Both Jully and Yadav demanded that the fee be discontinued immediately and that the amount collected from students be refunded.
Calling the fee collection a “robbery of students’ pockets”, Manish Yadav alleged that there was no evidence to show that the Rs 223 crore collected had been used for academic discussions or student counselling services. He termed the matter a serious violation of financial norms and demanded intervention by the Governor, a probe into the alleged irregularities, immediate discontinuation of the fee, and refund of the collected amount to students.
Jully further accused Minister Prem Chand Bairwa of violating the privilege of the House by providing contradictory answers on the same issue. He alleged that the minister’s responses regarding the “discussion fee” were inconsistent and misleading, further escalating tensions in the Assembly.
Amid the heated exchanges, the Speaker ruled that the matter could not be taken up for detailed discussion during Question Hour. However, Opposition members continued their protest, leading to repeated disruptions in the proceedings.
Question Hour ultimately concluded amid uproar, with Opposition members staging protests and accusing the government of financial impropriety, lack of transparency and failure to protect students’ interests.
The issue led to prolonged disruption in the Assembly, reflecting sharp differences between the ruling government and the Opposition over the legality and utilisation of funds collected from students by state universities.
(IANS)
