Delhi High Court: Awarding Penalty In Absence Of Express Provisions In UGC Act Can’t Be Justified By Way Of Implication Under Broader Regulatory Functions
The Delhi High Court said that there is no provision in the Act, which confers power on the UGC to debar the University from enrolling Ph.D. scholars for alleged non adherence of its provisions.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that awarding of penalty in the absence of express provisions in the UGC (University Grants Commission) Act, 1956, cannot be justified by way of implication under the broader regulatory functions or powers of the UGC referred to in the Preamble or Section 12(j) of the UGC Act.
A Petition was preferred before the Court assailing the Order by which the Petitioner-Singhania University was debarred from enrolling scholars under its Ph.D. Programme for the next five years i.e. from academic year 2025-26 to 2029-30, with further direction to immediately discontinue enrolling Ph.D. students.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “Clearly, the penalty that has been awarded to the University in the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is neither traceable to the provisions of the UGC Act nor to the Regulations which have been invoked in the impugned order. Awarding of penalty in the absence of express provisions in the UGC Act, cannot be justified by way of implication under the broader regulatory functions or powers of the UGC referred to in the preamble or Section 12(j) of the UGC Act.”
The Bench said that there is no provision in the Act, which confers power on the UGC to debar the University from enrolling Ph.D. scholars for alleged non adherence of its provisions.
Senior Advocate Parag P. Tripathi appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Manoj Ranjan Sinha appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was a University established under the Singhania University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008 and recognised under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act. It was offering various academic programmes, including Ph.D. degrees, since its inception. It complied with all regulatory requirements as applicable to a State University and continued to furnish information and clarifications as sought by the Respondent-UGC from time to time. It was consistently maintaining academic and infrastructural standards as prescribed under the UGC Act. It was stated that there is no prohibition against a statutory university such as the Petitioner-University under the UGC Act to award degree/diploma/certificate in any and all courses and in fact such degrees/diploma/certificates are valid and recognized for all intents and purposes in accordance with Section 22 of the UGC Act.
Under the UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, the UGC had sent a Notice to the Petitioner asking it to furnish information regarding establishment of off-campuses of the University, close all such centres which it had started within the State of Rajasthan and out of the State and not to start courses like B.Ed., M.Ed. and CPMed etc. A reply was sent by the Petitioner and subsequently, an order was passed by the UGC, directing it to not establish any off-campus centres and affiliate colleges and study centres through franchisee. Thereafter, the State Government also directed the Petitioner to comply with the notice. Being aggrieved, the University approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “A conjoint reading of Preamble and Section 12(j) of the UGC Act envisage that regulatory authority of the UGC is limited to co-ordination and determination of standards in universities and performance of such functions by the UGC as may be deemed necessary for advancing the cause of higher education in India. Neither the Preamble nor Section 12(j) contemplates imposition of penalty in the event of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder.”
The Court added that except for limited power found under Section 12A of the UGC Act, which allows initiation of an inquiry only against a college, followed by passing of a prohibitory order with the approval of the Central Government, no power of debarment as exercised by UGC can be found under the UGC Act and the Regulations referred to in the SCN (Show-Cause Notice) and the impugned order.
“Notably, the power conferred under Section 12A is also confined solely to colleges and not Universities, and that too concerning issues of donations, and levy or charging of fee beyond the scale specified by the UGC. … Likewise, under Section 14, the UGC can only withhold from a University, grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the UGC, in case such University grants affiliation to any college in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder”, it said.
Conclusion
The Court reiterated that powers of a statutory body like UGC are derived, controlled and restricted by the statutes which create them and the Regulations framed thereunder and any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of the restrictions placed on their powers is ultra vires.
“In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 being outside the purview of the statute and the statutory Regulations invoked, is a nullity and liable to be set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the UGC’s order.
Cause Title- Singhania University v. University Grants Commission (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8102)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Parag P. Tripathi, Advocates Aslam Ahmed, Ravi Singhania, Rohit Jain, Shabies A. Nabi, Mishika Bajpai, and Harilal. S.
Respondent: Advocates Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Vishal Agrawal.
