Madras High Court Upholds "National Engineering College" Name, Strikes Down AICTE 's Retrospective Ban

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - Justices RMT. Teekaa Raman and N. Senthilkumar

In a significant verdict for educational institutions, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled in favor of National Engineering College, Kovilpatti, setting aside regulations by the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE ) that sought to retroactively prohibit the use of the word "National" in the names of technical institutions. The court's decision, pronounced on March 18, 2025, allows National Engineering College to retain its name, marking a victory against AICTE 's attempt to enforce name changes on long-established institutions.

Case Background: Battle Over "National"

The case originated from a 2002 AICTE advertisement followed by 2020 regulations that restricted the use of words like "National," "Indian," and "Government" in the names of private technical institutions, arguing they could mislead stakeholders into believing these were government-run or aided institutions. National Engineering College, established in 1984 and operating under the same name since, challenged these directives. The college argued that AICTE lacked the statutory power to enforce such retrospective name changes and that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, did not explicitly prohibit the use of "National" in their context.

Arguments Presented Before the Court

For National Engineering College (Appellant/Petitioner):

Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the college argued that:

• Lack of AICTE Power: AICTE 's regulations prohibiting "National" were beyond its statutory powers, particularly lacking retrospective application. Sections 12, 22, and 23 of the AICTE Act did not grant such authority.
• No Prohibition Under Emblems Act: The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, does not expressly forbid the use of "National," and its use by the college did not suggest government patronage.
• Retrospective Application Invalid: Regulations cannot be applied retrospectively without explicit statutory backing, which the AICTE Act lacks.
• Precedent and Practice: Numerous institutions use "National" with AICTE 's knowledge and approval, indicating inconsistent application of the rule. AICTE 's Approval Process Handbook, cited as statutory backing, lacks such legal standing and cannot be retrospectively applied. Reliance was placed on judgments from Kerala, Bombay, and Rajasthan High Courts that supported their position.

For AICTE (Respondent):

Standing Counsel Mr. N. Dilip Kumar contended that:

• Statutory Power of AICTE : AICTE possesses the power under Sections 10(k) and 23 of the AICTE Act to regulate technical education, including naming conventions, to prevent misrepresentation.
• Prospective Application: The regulation is not retrospective but applies prospectively from its enactment to ensure clarity and avoid confusion going forward.
• Misleading Name: The use of "National" can mislead the public into assuming government affiliation, which AICTE aims to prevent.
• Statutory Backing of Handbook: The AICTE Approval Process Handbook, which underpins the regulation, has statutory backing, making the directive legally sound. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Judgments to argue for the prospective nature of statutes.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedents

The High Court bench meticulously examined the arguments and referred to several key legal precedents:

• Retrospective Legislation: Citing Union of India & Ors. Vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills & Anr. (2021) and Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2006), the court reiterated that subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized by the parent statute. The AICTE Act lacks such explicit authorization.
• AICTE Handbook's Status: Referring to Dr.J.J.Magdum College of Engineering Vs. AICTE & Ors. (2020) Bombay High Court judgment, the bench clarified that the AICTE Approval Process Handbook is merely a set of guidelines and not a statutory regulation capable of retrospective application.
• Emblems Act Interpretation: Following the Rajasthan High Court's view in New India Public School Society & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) and Bombay High Court in Goenkarancho Ekvot Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007), the court held that the Emblems Act does not outright prohibit "National" in names, especially for educational institutions, unless used improperly to suggest undue government patronage. The court found no evidence of "improper use" by National Engineering College or public confusion after 40 years of operation.
• Kerala High Court Precedent: The court concurred with the Kerala High Court's Division Bench in Sujith Kumar and Anr. Vs. Vinodh and 8 Ors. (2019), affirmed by the Supreme Court, which established the "twin conditions" for retrospective subordinate legislation: explicit authorization in the parent act and a clear declaration of retrospective effect in the legislation itself, neither of which were met in this case.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment:

> "A careful reading of Section 23, in particular, Sub Section 2 would reveal that the power to frame regulations would not embrace or in encompass within its preview as to the words to be used in the name of the technical institution as also the words not to be used in the names of the technical institution..."

> "… AICTE lacks competency to make to make regulation with retrospective effect."

> "…the conditions prescribed under the “Approval Process Handbook” with regard to prohibition to use the word “National” does not have any statutory force for its retrospective action."

Final Verdict and Implications

The Madras High Court allowed Writ Petition No.21543 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2016, declaring Regulation No.4.1(b) of the AICTE Regulations, 2020, invalid and inoperative concerning National Engineering College. The court set aside the previous single judge's judgment and upheld the college's right to continue using its established name.

This judgment reaffirms the principle against retrospective application of subordinate legislation without clear statutory authority and limits the scope of AICTE 's regulatory power over the naming of long-standing technical institutions. It provides significant relief to National Engineering College and potentially other similarly named institutions, reinforcing the importance of established institutional identity and the limitations of regulatory overreach.

[ T.K.R. , J.] [ N.S. , J.]

18.03.2025