<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (2) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173505</link>
    <description>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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173505</link>
      <description>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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>