Supreme Court: Pooja Kumari Seeks Degree after NIA Fees Seizure

• MBBS graduate Pooja Kumari's degree and completion certificate are being withheld by Chettinad Academy of Research and Education.
• This action follows the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) seizure of ₹1.13 crore in tuition fees paid by Ms. Kumari, which the agency deemed alleged proceeds of crime under UAPA.
• The NIA initiated a UAPA case in December 2021 against some of Ms. Kumari's relatives for alleged Maoist links, with her brother named as an accused, but Pooja Kumari herself is not implicated.
• Ms. Kumari had secured admission in 2017, paid the fees via banking channels, and successfully completed her MBBS course and compulsory internship.
• The Supreme Court, through Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has issued notice to the Central government and the college regarding Ms. Kumari's plea challenging the demand for re-payment of fees.

This case presents a critical legal dilemma concerning the rights of innocent third parties, such as students and educational institutions, when funds legitimately paid are subsequently seized by investigative agencies as alleged proceeds of crime under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Pooja Kumari, an MBBS graduate, finds her academic future in limbo as Chettinad Academy of Research and Education has withheld her degree and course completion certificate. This unusual situation stems from the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) seizure of the substantial fees she had paid to the medical college. The graduate has now escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking intervention in the complex dispute involving her, the institution, and the central investigative agency.

Ms. Kumari had secured her admission to the MBBS program at Chettinad Academy in 2017 through the standard counseling process. Throughout her medical education, she meticulously paid a total of ₹1.13 crore in tuition and other fees to the college. These payments were made transparently through established banking channels, fulfilling her financial obligations for the course. She successfully completed both her MBBS curriculum and the mandatory rotating medical internship, thereby meeting all academic requirements for graduation.

The root of the current predicament traces back to December 2021, when the NIA initiated a case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This investigation targeted some of Ms. Kumari's relatives, alleging their involvement in Maoist links. Her brother was subsequently named as an accused in the ongoing UAPA proceedings. Crucially, Pooja Kumari herself has not been arraigned as an accused in this case, maintaining her status as an innocent third party.

During the course of its investigation, the NIA took the significant step of treating the funds Ms. Kumari had paid for her college education as alleged proceeds of crime. Consequently, the agency proceeded to seize the entire amount, ₹1.13 crore, directly from Chettinad Academy. This action by the NIA effectively deprived the college of the tuition fees it had legitimately received for providing Ms. Kumari's medical education.

Facing the college's refusal to release her essential academic documents without re-payment of the seized funds, Pooja Kumari filed a petition before the Supreme Court, titled *Pooja Kumari v Union of India*. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta recently addressed her plea. On Thursday, the apex court issued formal notice to both the Central government and Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, signaling the commencement of judicial scrutiny into this intricate matter.

Ms. Kumari's petition specifically challenges the college's demand that she pay her fees a second time to secure the release of her degree and completion certificate. Her legal challenge underscores a fundamental conflict: the right of a student to their earned degree versus an educational institution's financial claims following an asset seizure by a national investigative agency, particularly when the student is not implicated in any wrongdoing.

This case presents a critical legal dilemma concerning the rights of innocent third parties, such as students and educational institutions, when funds legitimately paid are subsequently seized by investigative agencies as alleged proceeds of crime under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling in *Pooja Kumari v Union of India* is poised to establish significant precedent regarding the scope of asset forfeiture powers under UAPA, especially when these powers impact individuals not accused of any crime.

The outcome will be closely watched by legal professionals advising educational institutions on financial compliance and by those representing individuals whose assets become entangled in criminal investigations. It will likely clarify the responsibilities of institutions when faced with such seizures, the potential for restitution, and the extent to which an individual's legitimate transactions can be retroactively invalidated by an agency's determination of "proceeds of crime," even when the individual themselves is not a suspect.

This case presents a significant legal challenge regarding the rights of innocent third parties (students, educational institutions) when funds legitimately paid are later seized by investigative agencies as alleged proceeds of crime under UAPA. Lawyers advising educational institutions on financial compliance or representing individuals whose assets are subject to seizure will need to monitor this Supreme Court decision for precedent on liability, restitution, and the scope of asset forfeiture powers.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets.