Private university by notification scheme invalidated for bypassing academic infrastructure and higher education standards

Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh private university law were held unconstitutional because they allowed a university to be created by Gazette notification on the basis of a project report, without first ensuring a real institution with teaching staff, campus, libraries, laboratories and other academic infrastructure. That scheme was found to encroach on Parliament's exclusive power over co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education and to conflict with the UGC Act, 1956. The 2004 amendment did not cure the defect, as it still permitted notification before the university became a functioning centre of higher education. As a result, the notifications issued under the invalid provisions could not survive, though student interests were to be protected through affiliation measures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, which enabled a university to be established by Gazette notification on the basis of a project report, were ultra vires the Constitution. (ii) Whether the 2004 amendment cured the constitutional and statutory defects, and whether the notifications issued under the principal Act could survive.

Issue (i): Whether sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, which enabled a university to be established by Gazette notification on the basis of a project report, were ultra vires the Constitution.

Analysis: The governing legislative scheme distinguishes the State power to provide for incorporation of universities from the Union power over co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education. A university, in its ordinary constitutional sense, denotes a real institution with teachers, scholars, campus, classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and the capacity for teaching and research at a higher level. The impugned provisions allowed a mere proposal on paper to be notified as a university, thereby conferring juristic personality and the statutory right to grant degrees without ensuring any real academic infrastructure or teaching standards. This method was held to trench upon the field reserved to Parliament under Entry 66 and to defeat the operation of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, especially the scheme governing recognised degrees and regulatory control. The provisions also enabled universities to operate beyond the State, which reinforced the constitutional infirmity.

Conclusion: Sections 5 and 6 were held to be ultra vires and were struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2004 amendment cured the constitutional and statutory defects, and whether the notifications issued under the principal Act could survive.

Analysis: The amendment introduced conditions regarding land, endowment funds, and a Regulatory Commission, but it did not alter the basic vice that a university could still come into existence through executive notification on the basis of a proposal rather than as an actual functioning institution of higher education. The amended framework continued to permit notification of a university without first establishing the substantive academic and infrastructural requirements that define a university. Since the foundational defect remained unchanged, the amendment did not save the principal scheme. Once the enabling provisions were invalid, all notifications issued under them necessarily lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The amendment did not cure the illegality, and the notifications establishing the universities could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The statutory mechanism for creating private universities by notification was constitutionally impermissible, and the challenged universities could not continue to exist, though student interests were directed to be protected through appropriate affiliation measures.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law cannot validly confer the status of a university by executive notification on a mere proposal or sponsoring body without ensuring that the institution is a genuine centre of higher education with adequate infrastructure, because such a law intrudes upon Parliament's exclusive power to secure co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education.

---