Why in the News?

Non-BJP-led State governments oppose the UGC’s draft regulation on vice chancellors’ appointments, claiming it violates constitutional federal principles, and have called for its immediate withdrawal.

What are the crucial point that needs to be considered?

• Jurisdiction of UGC: The UGC’s authority to regulate the selection and appointment of vice-chancellors is questionable since the UGC Act does not explicitly include these provisions. The primary focus of the Act is on maintaining educational standards, not on administrative appointments.
• Consistency with UGC Act: Any regulation made by the UGC must align with the provisions of the UGC Act. If a regulation extends beyond the scope of the Act, it could be deemed ultra vires (beyond legal authority) and thus invalid.
• Federal Principles: The proposed regulations have raised concerns about violating federal principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, as they may interfere with state legislations that govern universities.
• Legislative Authority: Qualifications and selection criteria for vice chancellors are typically established by state legislatures, highlighting a potential overreach by the UGC in its regulatory role.
• Impact on Educational Standards: The selection and appointment of vice-chancellors should not be viewed as directly impacting educational standards, which is the primary mandate of the UGC.
• Judicial Precedents: Previous court rulings, including those from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, have established important legal precedents regarding the relationship between UGC regulations and state laws, emphasizing that subordinate legislation cannot override state legislation.
• Constitutional Questions: There are ongoing constitutional debates regarding whether UGC regulations can override state laws and how such conflicts should be resolved under Article 254 of the Constitution, which addresses repugnancy between central and state laws.

What is the present ruling made by the judiciary?

The judiciary has provided significant rulings concerning the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, particularly regarding the selection and appointment of vice-chancellors.  

• Kalyani Mathivanan Case (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that UGC regulations have a binding effect on universities. This ruling emphasized that subordinate legislation, such as UGC regulations, must be adhered to by the universities under its jurisdiction.
• Bombay High Court Ruling (2011): In the case of Suresh Patilkhede vs. The Chancellor Universities of Maharashtra, the court stated that UGC regulations cannot override state legislation. It highlighted that Regulation 7.3.0, being subordinate legislation, does not have the authority to supersede laws enacted by state legislatures.
• Constitutional Context: The rulings also touched upon Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with repugnancy between central and state laws. It clarified that only a law passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to by the President can override state legislation, not subordinate regulations like those issued by the UGC.

Way forward: 

• Collaborative Federal Framework: Establish a consensus-driven approach between the UGC and State governments to ensure that regulations respect federal principles while upholding academic standards. This can involve creating joint committees for resolving conflicts and aligning policies.
• Judicial Clarity and Legislative Reforms: Seek a definitive constitutional interpretation of the UGC’s regulatory scope through the judiciary, and, if needed, amend the UGC Act to explicitly define its role in administrative matters, ensuring consistency with the federal structure.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now