Karnataka HC Rejects NLSIU's Challenge To UGC Regulation Which Restricts Territorial Jurisdiction Of Universities

NLSIU had challenged the public notice dated 19.07.2016 and a communication dated 06.10.2016, issued by UGC and the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017.

The regulations provide that a University which is established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the Act and in no case it shall operate beyond the territory of the State where it is located.

A single bench of Justice R Devdas on (May 19), disposed of the petition leaving it to the University to approach the UGC seeking a declaration as 'Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities'. In terms of the University Grants Commission (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017, provisions are made for creating a distinct category of Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities, which would have the benefit of establishing Off-campus centres and Offshore campus.

Submission for NLSIU

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the University submitted that by placing a restriction on the territorial jurisdiction, the UGC has violated the right of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) and the Right to Education under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

He contended that "When there was no restriction of the territorial jurisdiction under the Act by which the petitioner-University is established, the same cannot be imposed upon the petitioner by the UGC. It is by now well established that UGC is established under an Act of the Parliament for maintenance of standard of education in the country, but the impugned public notice, communication and Regulations, 2017 travel beyond the powers of the UGC.

Further, he said "Such restriction is inconsistent with the object and nature of distance education. Moreover, the University has not established any study centre beyond Karnataka and neither overseas. On the contrary, the University has only established examination centres at New Delhi, Kolkata and Pune, other than Bengaluru. It was therefore contended that "It is beyond the powers of the UGC to place restrictions on the petitioner-University directing it not to conduct examinations in the examination centers which are beyond the territories of the State where the University is established."

Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the high court in the case of Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (25 percent domicile reservation for State of Karnataka Students) decided on 29.09.2020. It was submitted that the bench has held that although the petitioner-University is indicated to be a State University, it is only for the purpose of making grants to the University by construing it to be a University established by a State enactment. But, the said fact would not make the petitioner-University a State University, as contended by the learned Advocate General. It was also held that although the petitioner-University may not be an institution of national importance or Institution of Eminence as per the Central Government, but it is, nevertheless, a national level institution.

Submission of UGC:

Advocate Showri HR appearing for UGC attention of this Court to the larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420, where it was held that establishment of a University conferring the legal status, but lacking in all the basic requirements, is clearly contrary to the constitutional scheme and is not contemplated by Article 246 of the Constitution. The power of the UGC in reigning in such violations and to ensure the standards of learning are maintained, has been upheld by the Apex Court.

Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590, in the matter of distance education and the powers and functions of the UGC in such matters, is also pressed into service.

Finally it was submitted that on establishment of the UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017, the UGC has made provision to create a distinct category of Deemed to be Universities, called 'Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities' which would be regulated differently from other Deemed to be Universities so as to evolve into institutions of world class in a reasonable time period. It is therefore submitted that if the petitioner-University seeks to provide such world class education through distance learning, it is required to seek confirmation of such status.

Court findings:

Firstly the court said "The reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Master Balachandar Krishnan, by the senior counsel for the University cannot come to its rescue. The issue considered in the said decision was regarding the powers of the State Government in directing to provide reservations for students belonging to the State."

It added "Therefore, in that context, the Division Bench noticed the role of Bar Council of India, its Trust and the Society in the establishment and functioning of the Law School and it was held that the State Government has been only a facilitator in granting the Deemed University status to the petitioner-University, through the enactment. In the opinion of this Court, that by itself, will not permit the petitioner-University to contend that it was not established by the State Act."

Further, the court said "Now that UGC has come up with the UGC (Institutions f Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017, making provision to create a distinct category of Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities, which would have the benefit of establishing Off-campus centres and Offshore campus, the petitioner University is free to make an application seeking declaration as 'Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities'."

It concluded by saying "As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for UGC, any directions issued to the contrary, would place the petitioner University on a different pedestal, in contravention of the UGC Regulations, beyond the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, under which the UGC is the only authority to determine standards of education."