Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UGC Regulations On Distance Learning And Online Programmes

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which require universities to meet specific accreditation scores or rankings and to offer programmes in conventional/traditional mode before offering them through distance or online modes. However, the Court also observed that the current accreditation criteria are inappropriate for a Skill University.The petitioners had challenged Regulation 3(A)(i), Regulation 3(B)(b)(ii), Regulation 4(B)(ii) and Regulation 4(C)(ii) of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 ('Regulations') made under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.The Regulations challenged imposed the following requirements on Higher Educational Institutions (HEI) to offer undergraduate and postgraduate programmes through the Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode and the Online (OL) mode: (i) that HEIs must achieve a specific NAAC accreditation score or NIRF ranking before being permitted to offer programmes in these modes (ii) that HEI proposing to offer programme in ODL or OL mode must already be offering the programme in the conventional mode, where face-to-face teaching occurs in a classroom setting and at least one batch of students should have completed the programme.The petitioner no. 1, Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University (SSPU) is a skill university which sought to offer certain programmes through the ODL but was unable to meet the requirements of the above-mentioned Regulations. The Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan first examined the history behind the policy choice for the Regulations. The Court noted that Ministry of Human Resources Development had constituted a Committee headed by Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon (Menon Committee) in 2010 that provided recommendations for approval of Distance Education courses/institutions.It observed that key recommendation of the Menon Committee included encouraging conventional universities to adopt a dual mode of education, offering Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmes in addition to conventional programmes to better utilise the existing infrastructure. Further, universities could be granted permission to offer ODL programmes only if they were being offered in conventional mode, with same syllabus and evaluation for both. Reviewing the policy choice, the Court stated that a lack of quality control mechanisms was identified as a serious challenge to the effectiveness of ODL programmes. It noted that NAAC accreditation and NIRF ranking provide empirical and objective analysis to measure the quality of HEI. Therefore, the requirements provided in the Regulations help determine whether an institution has the capacity to offer programmes through the ODL and OL modes.“Therefore, such measures bring in the ability to stipulate a measure to determine if an institution should be allowed to offer programmes through the ODL and OL modes i.e. in a teaching environment that is more challenging than a conventional classroom. Therefore, it would stand to reason that if an institution is poorly rated in the conduct of programmes even in the classroom mode, it is reasonable to not permit it to take on the even more challenging platform of ODL and OL modes” the Court said. The Court thus found that the requirement of NAAC accreditation or an NIRF rating in the Regulations was not unreasonable and arbitrary. Conventional programme requirement With respect to requirement that ODL programme must also be offered in the conventional mode, with at least one batch having passed out, the Court noted that this is a mere requirement that HEIs must demonstrate as a 'proof of concept' in offering a programme. It observed that if at least one batch has graduated from the conventional programme, it would indicate that the HEI is conducting the programme with market acceptability for it, thus ensuring the quality in the ODL and OL modes. The Court therefore held the requirements of the Regulations were a rational and reasonable policy choice. Accreditation process of a Skill University The petitioners contented that the requirement for accreditation or ranking should not apply to skill universities as the parameters for accreditation of traditional/conventional HEIs are not a fair means to assess programmes of a skill university. The Court examined the regulatory framework governing the process for accreditation and ranking. It found the current NAAC accreditation process inappropriate for a skill university such as the SSPU and this was even acknowledged by the respondents. It held that the parameters used by NAAC for rating traditional universities “is evidently not totally appropriate for a skill university” and that no distinction is being made for accreditation process between a traditional ...

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UGC Regulations On Distance Learning And Online Programmes

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags