Are UGC Regulations Mandatory Or Recommendatory On Statutory Universities? An Analysis With Judicial Developments

The UGC issues regulations from time to time to ensure quality and uniformity in the education provided by these universities. These regulations cover various aspects, including curriculum design, faculty qualifications, infrastructure, and other parameters deemed essential for maintaining academic standards. The UGC Act provides a legal framework for the establishment and functioning of universities, and it confers the UGC with the authority to make regulations regarding various aspects of higher education. Section 22 of the UGC Act^[1], for instance, specifies that only universities established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the Act^[2] have the right to confer degrees. This provision highlights the regulatory control that the UGC exercises over universities. In addition to statutory provisions, the UGC Act empowers the UGC to take necessary steps for promoting and coordinating university education and determining and maintaining standards. This broad authority includes the formulation of regulations to be followed by universities. The UGC, through its regulations, aims to ensure that universities adhere to certain minimum standards and benchmarks, thereby safeguarding the quality of higher education in the country.

Statutory universities derive their authority from specific legislation enacted by the government, conferring legal status and autonomy. The UGC, established in 1956, was created to regulate and maintain the standards of higher education in the country. It formulates guidelines and regulations that statutory universities are expected to adhere to. The question of whether these regulations are mandatory or recommendatory has been a matter of judicial consideration.

One of the landmark cases shedding light on this issue is the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002).^[3] The Supreme Court in this case emphasized the autonomy of educational institutions while recognizing the regulatory role of bodies like the UGC. The court held that UGC regulations are binding and must be followed by universities to ensure quality and standards in education. This decision reinforced the mandatory nature of UGC regulations on statutory universities.

Moreover, in the case of University Grants Commission v. P.K. Mukherjee (2002)^[4]The court reiterated the mandatory nature of UGC regulations on universities. The judgment emphasized that universities established under a statute are subject to UGC regulations, and any deviation would be against the principles of maintaining uniformity and excellence in education.

Further judicial pronouncements, such as the Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003)^[5] & Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2013)^[6] reiterated the significance of adhering to UGC regulations. The court emphasized that the autonomy of educational institutions does not grant them absolute freedom from regulatory mechanisms, especially those aimed at maintaining academic excellence and integrity. These decisions collectively reinforce the mandatory nature of UGC regulations.

On 21st October 2022, in the case of Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors.^[7] the Apex Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar opined that solely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State's Universities.

Most recently SC in Mehar Fatima Husain v. Jamia Millia Islamia & ors^[8] Made it more clear that the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations are binding on the Universities, and the Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the teachers at Jamia Millia Islamia (“University”) on a permanent basis who were denied regularization by the University even after UGC's letter to University directing regularization of the teachers who were selected through a regular selection process and possessed required qualifications. Justice Abhay S Oka emphasized on the binding nature of UGC regulations while citing the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj j& ors^[9], where in para 27 the court observed as follows: “we hold that the UGC Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies; and consequence of failure of the university to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, UGC may withhold the grants to the university made out of the fund of the Commission".

Relaying on the ratio of Kalyani Mathivanan, the Hon'ble court in the present case quoted that "It is true that the letter dated 25th June 2019 addressed by the UGC has used the word 'may'. However, considering the statutory position of the UGC, there was no reason for the University not to follow what the UGC stated."

These judicial pronouncements underscore the legal obligation of statutory universities to adhere to UGC regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations can lead to legal consequences, including the withdrawal of grants and recognition by the UGC.

It is crucial to note that the UGC's regulations are not mere guidelines but have legal backing. The UGC Act and relevant judicial pronouncements affirm the mandatory nature of these regulations for statutory universities. By complying with these regulations, universities contribute to the overall enhancement of the quality and credibility of higher education in India.

In conclusion, UGC regulations are mandatory for statutory universities, as established by the UGC Act and supported by a plethora of judicial pronouncements. These regulations play a vital role in maintaining standards, ensuring uniformity, and upholding the quality of higher education. Compliance with UGC regulations is not only a legal obligation but also a crucial aspect of fostering excellence in the academic arena.