Madras High Court Upholds UGC's Power To Impose Territorial Restrictions On Distance Education Courses

The Madras High Court has recently upheld the power of the University Grants Commission to impose Regulations for the conduct of Distance Education Programs by the universities.

The University Grants Commission, on 21st August 2012 had imposed a condition stating that the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the distance education programs were to be decided by the Distance Education Council (DEC). The DEC held that the territorial jurisdiction of the State Universities will be as per the Acts and Statutes of the universities but will not be beyond the boundaries of the respective states. In short, the DEC held that the universities could provide distance education only within the territorial limits of the State.

While disposing of a series of appeals filed by the University Grants Commission and other universities and private colleges relating to power of the Commission to impose such a condition, the Madras High Court ruled that since the University Grants Commission has been given primacy in matters of University education, the commission was within its authority to determine the standards of the universities.

The right and primacy of the University Grants Commission to impose Regulations for conduct of distance education programmes is upheld. We hasten to add that this shall not affect the students who have already undergone the courses pursuant to the interim orders of this Court.

The court also lamented that such regulations came to be necessary since a lot of educational institutions have started to commercialise education by engaging in indiscriminate franchisee agreements with persons without any expertise.

The fact that some of the franchisees are before us challenging the Regulations of the University Grants Commission itself is a proof to the fact that the entire system of education, particularly, open distance learning has been made a commercial venture by the Universities in their desire to make education a profitable venture. It is quite surprising that even state funded universities have ventured into such unethical practices.

Background

The universities challenged the condition on the ground that the DEC had acted beyond its powers under the University Grants Commission Act and the Annamalai University Act 1929. It was further submitted that such a condition would defeat the very purpose of the distance education.

The UGC however countered this contention by submitting that the directions were a result of the observations of the Apex Court in Professor Yash Pal and another v. State of Chattisgarh and others wherein the court had criticised the manner in which permissions were granted to universities offering distance education programmes. However, the writ court had not taken these contentions into consideration. The court had noted that since the UGC regulation did not provide for such restriction, it cannot be controlled by resolutions or subordinate legislations.

The division bench noted that under Entry 66 of List 1 of Section 7 of the Constitution, the Union had the authority over coordination and determination of standards in Institutions for higher education and research and scientific and technical institution. The University Grants Commission Act 1956 was enacted for this purpose. Thus, the Parliament and the UGC had supremacy over matters relating to determination of standards in institutions of higher education.

Thus, the court upheld the power of the UGC and at the same time gave relief to the students who were already admitted to the educational institutions.

Case Title: University Grants Commission and another v. Annamalai University and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 28