NCTE Not Empowered To Impose Penalty, Cannot Exercise Function Of Regional Committees: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) cannot claim existence of any inherent or plenary powers, adding that a statutory authority cannot impose penalties without authority of law in absence of an express provision in the parent statute.

Observing that penalty is a statutory liability which must be provided in the legislation itself, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that except for initiation of penal action of withdrawal of recognition under section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, there is no other express penal provision specified in the statute.

The court made the observations while allowing a bunch of 672 pleas filed by various unaided, self-financed teacher-education institutes (TEIs) established and sponsored by registered societies.

The petitioners had challenged the penalty imposed by NCTE declaring the academic session 2022-23 of the said institutes as a "zero academic year", thereby restricting fresh intake of students.

Section 17 empowers Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of TEIs in case of breach of any provision of the Act, rules, regulations or any condition subject to which recognition was granted.

Factual Background

A public notice was issued on September 22 in 2019 by the Member Secretary of NCTE for all TEIs across the country to file an annual Performance Appraisal Report along with a fee of Rs. 15,000 every year. It also stated that non-submission of PAR would attract action under section 17(1) of the Act.

A challenge to the said public notice was dismissed by the High Court in May 2021. Thereafter, a second notice was issued on September 29, 2021 requiring all TEIs to submit PAR for academic session 2020-21, latest by January 29, which was later extended to 15 March.

In the meanwhile, the dismissal of the said plea was challenged before a division bench which extended the time to submit PAR for academic session 2020-21 till March 31, but refused to grant any interim stay of 2019 public notice. The order was upheld by the Supreme Court in April and an extension of time till April 2 was granted for filing PAR.

Allowing the pleas challenging the imposition of penalty, Justice Narula ruled that the penalty of "zero academic year" is a concept which is foreign to the scheme of the NCTE Act. 

However, the court said that the NCTE and Regional Committees will be free to take action for non-compliance of submission of annual Performance Appraisal Report by TEIs, if so advised, in accordance with law, by taking reference to remedies provided under section 17 of the Act.

Court Observations

Perusing the legislative scheme of NCTE Act, Justice Narula said that NCTE is neither vested with any power to grant recognition nor to take any adverse or penal action against a recognised TEI.

It was also added that even after inspection under section 13 of the Act, if a recognized TEI does not comply with recommendation of NCTE, it cannot by itself take any action against the said institutes.

"On the basis of information/report provided by NCTE, it is the Regional Committee alone that can initiate adverse/penal action under Section 17 of the Act," the court said.

It added: "Thus, NCTE's superior position does not allow it to usurp and exercise a function which has been statutorily and expressly conferred upon the Regional Committee, that is to say, the NCTE could not have exercised Regional Committee's function under Section 17."

The court said that when express power is given to the Regional Committee under the Act, it is impermissible for NCTE to resort to any general or implied powers under the law.

It added that the power to impose a condition of filing of PAR under section 12 of the Act, does not mean or imply that NCTE is also vested with the power to impose penal consequence.

"Since the Act prescribes a particular body (Regional Committees) to exercise a specific power, it is to be exercised by that body alone, and cannot be exercised by NCTE, in absence of any delegation of such powers to it," the court said while adding that delegating authority must act strictly within the parameters of the Act.

The court thus concluded that the quest of NCTE to ensure compliance "under the cover of assumed implied powers" cannot be a lawful basis to relax the rigours of the statute.

Title: COLLEGE OF APPLIED EDUCATION AND HEALTHSCIENCES v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

Click Here To Read Order