No relief for MBBS graduate whose degree was withheld over terror funding probe

The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal of an MBBS graduate who claimed that her medical degree was withheld following the NIA’s allegations that her tuition fees were paid with funds raised for the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).

In its June 17 judgment, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan upheld a single judge order dismissing a petition filed by Puja Kumari against her college’s move to withhold her certificates on the ground that its fees had not been paid. This came after the fee amount was frozen following an NIA probe alleging that her fees had been paid from funds raised to revive the organisation in Jharkhand and Bihar.

According to the petitioner, a total of Rs 1.13 crore was paid in fees by Kumari to the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai. Before the court, Kumari argued that she was not a suspect in the case and that her degree could not be withheld merely over a dispute over fees. She also relied on several judicial precedents holding that educational certificates are not marketable commodities and cannot be withheld as security for unpaid dues.

The case raises questions about the impact of anti-terror investigations on third parties who are not accused in the criminal case.

However, the Division Bench refused to direct the issuance of the certificates as the entire amount had been seized by the NIA under the UAPA, calling it funds collected through extortion. “The case at hand presents an extraordinary and intricate factual matrix involving national security, terrorist funding, and criminal asset seizure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,” the court observed.

Referring to the NIA chargesheet, it noted that the appellant’s brother, Tarun Kumar, and paternal uncle, Pradyuman Sharma, had been arraigned as key persons allegedly involved in raising extorted funds for the banned organisation, and that the money paid towards the appellant’s education was allegedly “directly traceable” to those funds.

The court further observed that although the appellant herself was not an accused, “she cannot assert an equitable right to benefit from the fruits of a crime.”

Story continues below this ad

The dispute traces its origins to an NIA case registered in 2021 by the agency’s Ranchi unit alleging a conspiracy to revive the banned CPI (Maoist) in Bihar and Jharkhand by raising funds through levy and extortion from contractors and influential persons. According to the NIA, the money was allegedly intended to strengthen the banned organisation and procure arms and ammunition.

During the investigation, the NIA named Tarun Kumar, the appellant’s brother, as one of the accused, alleging that he wrote letters in the name of CPI (Maoist) and circulated them among contractors and influential persons to collect “extortion money” on behalf of the banned organisation.

Tarun was arrested in 2022. The NIA subsequently alleged that a substantial part of the money traced during the investigation had been used for Puja Kumari’s medical education, leading to the seizure of the fee amount.

Ujjwal K Priyadarshi, counsel for both Tarun Kumar and the appellant, told The Indian Express that while the NIA alleges that the money constituted proceeds of terrorism, the sum had been utilised towards fees and was “never used for any terrorist activity”.

Story continues below this ad

“Whether the amount can legally be treated as ‘proceeds of terrorism’ under the UAPA is an issue that will ultimately be decided during the criminal trial,” he said. “The attachment of the fee amount has had serious consequences for the appellant Puja Kumari despite her not being an accused in the criminal case. She has completed her MBBS course but has been unable to secure her degree, preventing her from pursuing postgraduate medical education.”

Tarun Kumar’s bail application was rejected first by the Jharkhand High Court and then by the Supreme Court. However, in February 2025, the apex court granted him liberty to renew the plea after six months if the trial did not progress substantially.

“After the expiry of that period, a fresh bail application was moved before the trial court, which was again rejected. The matter has since reached the Supreme Court once more, which on Tuesday issued notice to the NIA on the fresh bail petition,” added Priyadarshi.