The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of the rapid expansion and functioning of private and deemed universities in the country, directing a comprehensive review of their governance, regulatory compliance and financial architecture. The intervention came in the backdrop of concerns raised over the credibility of Al-Falah University, Faridabad, following the Delhi blast.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NV Anjaria has sought detailed affidavits from the Union government, all State governments and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on multiple critical aspects related to the establishment, administration and oversight of private universities. The court emphasised that “no fact should be concealed or misrepresented in any form.”
How does UGC monitor private universities? Supreme Court seeks clarity
The court has asked the UGC to present a clear picture of its statutory role, regulatory powers and the operational mechanisms it deploys to supervise private universities. The Commission has been asked to explain:
- How student admission policies are monitored for compliance.
- How faculty recruitment is conducted and whether transparent standards are enforced.
- The frequency and method of regulatory inspections.
- How government concessions, land allotments and financial benefits granted to universities are tracked and audited.
The Bench has also raised a pointed question: Are private universities truly functioning on a not-for-profit model, or is surplus revenue being diverted to founders and their families?
Court flags concerns about grievance redressal mechanisms
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the effectiveness of grievance redressal systems available to students and staff inside private universities. It has asked authorities to clarify:
- Whether complaints are resolved within a time-bound framework.
- Whether procedures are transparent and outcomes properly recorded.
- Whether internal mechanisms ensure objective and impartial handling of disputes.
The Bench noted that universities cannot afford opaque complaint-handling processes when they directly impact student welfare and institutional credibility.
A petition about name correction turns into a public-interest issue
The matter originated from a student’s plea seeking acceptance of her name change by Amity University. However, during the hearings, the court observed that the issue reflected deeper administrative, structural and regulatory inconsistencies across various private institutions. Treating it as a broader systemic concern, the Bench converted the case into a public interest litigation (PIL).
Centre, States asked to explain how private universities were set up
The Supreme Court has sought granular details from the Centre and all States on the legal and administrative foundations upon which private and deemed universities have been established. Authorities must now furnish information on:
- The specific legal provisions under which these institutions were created.
- Land allotment procedures and the conditions attached to government concessions.
- The memorandum of association, bye-laws and governing frameworks of the trusts or societies running these universities.
- The composition and eligibility criteria of their governing bodies and top decision-making committees.
- Whether teachers and non-teaching staff are paid minimum wages and given mandated service rights.
The court has directed the Cabinet Secretary of the Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of all States to personally compile the required information and submit affidavits. The UGC Chairperson must do the same.
Court’s firm stance: “The full truth must come out”
The Bench underscored that the country’s rapidly expanding private university ecosystem directly affects the future of millions of students. Strong regulation, accountability and transparency are, therefore, indispensable.
The court remarked, “A university is a centre of education, not a business enterprise. If evidence emerges of arbitrary or profit-driven functioning at any level, the Court will be compelled to intervene.”
