UGC Appropriate Authority To Consider Consequences Of Its Orders For Annulment Of Illegal Degrees : Superme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the University Grants Commission(UGC) is the appropriate authority to take a decision on consequences of the UGC's decision to annul a degree. In other words, it is for the UGC, and not the Courts to decide if the students who had studied the course before its annulment should get the benefit of the degree.Following this view, the Supreme Court modified...
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the University Grants Commission(UGC) is the appropriate authority to take a decision on consequences of the UGC's decision to annul a degree. In other words, it is for the UGC, and not the Courts to decide if the students who had studied the course before its annulment should get the benefit of the degree.
Following this view, the Supreme Court modified an order of the Madras High Court, which held that students of technical degrees awarded through distance learning will not be affected by the annulment of the courses if they had undergone the course on the basis of the interim orders of the Court.
The Supreme Court asked UGC to take decision in respect of those students.
The decision has to take decision on the basis of principles laid down in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors.(2018). In this case, an engineering degree was awarded through distance learning and their degrees were subsequently cancelled on the reasoning that distance learning programme for technical branches of study is not permissible.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order on February 9 in an appeal filed by the UGC, challenging the Madras High Court's order wherein while upholding the right and primacy of the UGC to make regulations for conducing distance education programmes , the Court stated that the degrees to students undergone the course pursuant to the interim orders will not be affected.
The bench on July 5, 2023, issued notice in this special leave petition and had sought information on the nature of degree. It was informed that the degree in question concerned a technical branch of study.
Considering its view taken in CMJ Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors(2024), the bench disposed of the appeals with the direction that the Annamalai University shall furnish the list of students who have obtained the questionable degree and on receipt of the information, the UGC will take decision.
In CMJ Foundation, the Court held that UGC is the appropriate statutory authority to take decision, including to consider the consequences of its orders directing annulments of degrees that are illegal.
Headnote
University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 — Distance Education — Technical Degrees — Validity of Degrees — Primacy of Statutory Bodies — The Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the UGC in making regulations for distance education - it modified a High Court order that had validated technical degrees obtained via distance learning through interim orders – Held that technical education (Engineering) requires practical, hands-on training and cannot be conducted via distance mode without express AICTE approval - Following the precedent in CMJ Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., Supreme Court held that the UGC is the appropriate statutory authority to consider the consequences of its orders and take necessary actions regarding the annulment of illegal degrees.
Direction to Universities — Respondent – Supreme Court directed the Universities to furnish information to the UGC regarding students who obtained questionable degrees in technical branches - The UGC shall then take decisions based on the principles laid down in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro - Order passed in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to do complete justice in the specific facts and circumstances of the case. [Relied on Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. VS. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 468; Paras 6-8]
Case Details: THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR v. ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15406 15427/2023
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 183
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Tushar Mehta, Sg, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Romy, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Adv. Mr. Joe Sebastrian, Adv. Mr. Akshat Singh, Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, AOR Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, AOR Mr. Sunder Khatri, Adv. Mr. Sohel Rishabh, Adv. Mr. Naman Khatri, Adv. Ms. Priyanshi Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Mr. L C Patne, Adv. Mr. Neerja Patne, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sharmistha Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv