2005 (2) TMI 825 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are ultra vires and are to be struck down?

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of constitutional provisions.
2. Lack of infrastructure and teaching facilities.
3. Non-compliance with regulatory bodies.
4. Impact on the quality and standard of education.
5. Legislative competence of the State.
6. Extra-territorial operation of the Act.
7. Compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.
8. Validity of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
The petitioners argued that the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 (the Act) was ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly violating the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, and Bar Council of India Act, 1956. The Supreme Court examined the interplay of various constitutional entries concerning education and universities and concluded that the impugned Act violated the constitutional scheme by enabling a proposal on paper to be notified as a university without actual establishment and infrastructure.

2. Lack of Infrastructure and Teaching Facilities:
The petitioners highlighted that the State Government had been establishing universities indiscriminately without ensuring the availability of infrastructure, teaching facilities, or financial resources. Many universities were functioning from small rooms in commercial complexes or residential buildings without proper campuses, classrooms, libraries, or laboratories. The Supreme Court found that the Act allowed the notification of universities based on mere project reports without actual infrastructure, which was contrary to the constitutional scheme.

3. Non-Compliance with Regulatory Bodies:
The private universities were running professional courses without prior permission from regulatory bodies such as AICTE, MCI, and DCI. The requirement of obtaining prior permission from these bodies was not followed, and the universities were not under any authority's control. The Supreme Court noted that the Act had completely done away with UGC's control over these private universities, leading to non-compliance with regulatory standards.

4. Impact on the Quality and Standard of Education:
The petitioners argued that the private universities were offering courses and degrees without subscribing to UGC standards, leading to a lack of homogeneity in course content and affecting the overall standard of education. The Supreme Court emphasized that proper standards of teaching could not be achieved without adequate infrastructural facilities and that the impugned Act stultified the functioning of UGC in ensuring coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

5. Legislative Competence of the State:
The State of Chhattisgarh argued that it had the legislative competence to make an enactment regarding the incorporation of a university under Entry 32 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that while the State Legislature could legislate on the incorporation of universities, the impugned Act's provisions allowing a proposal on paper to be notified as a university without actual establishment and infrastructure were ultra vires and a fraud on the Constitution.

6. Extra-Territorial Operation of the Act:
The Act allowed universities to have off-campus centers and study centers outside the State of Chhattisgarh and even outside the country. The Supreme Court held that this provision gave the State enactment an extra-territorial operation, which was beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legislature as per Article 245(1) of the Constitution.

7. Compliance with UGC Regulations:
The Supreme Court noted that the UGC had made regulations for establishing and maintaining standards in private universities, which required each private university to be established by a separate State Act and conform to UGC Act provisions. The impugned Act's provisions allowing universities to be notified by executive action without a legislative enactment were in conflict with UGC regulations and, therefore, invalid.

8. Validity of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002:
The Supreme Court declared Sections 5 and 6 of the Act ultra vires and struck them down. Consequently, all notifications issued by the State Government notifying the universities were quashed, and such universities ceased to exist. The Court directed the State Government to take appropriate measures to affiliate institutions established by such private universities to existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh, provided they fulfilled the requisite norms and standards.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, declared Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, ultra vires, and quashed all notifications issued under these sections. The Court directed the State Government to take steps to affiliate institutions established by the private universities to existing State Universities, ensuring compliance with prescribed norms and standards.

← Previous Next →