Back
Supreme Court Orders UGC Over Fake Medical College Run From UP Farmhouse
The has directed the and all regulatory authorities to issue public advisories cautioning students and the general public against taking admission to, or dealing with, educational institutions without first verifying their authenticity. The order came after the Court took notice of a purported fake medical college in Uttar Pradesh allegedly operating from a dilapidated farmhouse, with an illiterate tea seller shown as its chairman. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N.V. Anjaria also directed the Union Government to monitor compliance with the regulatory directions.
The matter forms part of the Court’s wider monitoring of the functioning of educational institutions across India—schools, colleges, and universities—which began in a case relating to Amity University, Noida, and was later expanded into a nationwide inquiry into how private universities are being run.
A College in Name Only?
The Court was alerted to a published report about an institution operating from Mahmoodpur Nagaria village in Etah district, Uttar Pradesh. According to the material placed before the bench, the institution claimed to offer courses including D.Pharma, B.Pharma, B.Sc. Nursing, DMLT, BMLT, BAMS, GNM and ANM. These are serious paramedical, nursing, and medical qualifications that require recognition and approval from the appropriate statutory councils.
But the physical reality was far different. The bench recorded that the institution appeared to be functioning from an old, dilapidated structure of two or three rooms standing in the middle of a field, with no other structure visible nearby and no proper maintenance. These facts were brought to the Court’s attention by , a former Indian Legal Service officer assisting the Court.
The most striking detail concerned the figurehead of the institution. Bhagwan Das Singh Baghel, described as an illiterate tea seller, was listed as its chairman. When questioned, he feigned ignorance about what was happening at the institution but admitted that he routinely signed college documents provided by Satender Kumar, the person alleged to be actually running the establishment.
“When questioned, [he] feigned ignorance about what was happening. However, he admitted that he regularly used to sign the College documents provided by Satender Kumar,” the Court noted.
Kumar, along with three other persons, was reportedly made the subject of police action after the report came out. The , appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, informed the bench that an independent inquiry had also been ordered into the matter.
UGC Direction and the State’s Quick Response
The Court was appreciative of the state’s prompt response. It observed that the inquiry would be significant not only for accountability but also for the UGC and other regulators to frame future guidelines to prevent such incidents.
“We find that the same was required and that the steps taken are in the public interest so that the entire is exposed, and based on the said inquiry, future guidelines can be issued by the UGC and all the regulatory bodies to prevent such incidents,” the bench observed.
The Court then accepted a suggestion made by ASG Nataraj that the UGC should issue a . As the bench recorded:
“A suggestion has come from Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, that the UGC, having come to know of such activity happening on the ground, may issue an advisory to all authorities/institutions, and especially to the public at large, not to take admission in or deal with institutions without first verifying the authenticity of such institutions.”
“We find the suggestion to be useful, and accordingly, a direction is issued to the UGC and all the regulatory authorities to issue such to act accordingly,” the Court said.
The Union Government, represented by , informed the bench that the UGC had already written to Uttar Pradesh’s additional chief secretary handling higher education matters. The Court responded by directing the Centre to circulate its order to all regulatory bodies and to monitor compliance with the directions.
A Broader Audit of Private Universities
This latest direction is part of a larger exercise by the same bench to scrutinise private universities across the country. The original dispute, involving Amity University, Noida, grew into a nationwide examination of whether private universities are discharging their public educational mandate.
The Court had previously appointed Sharma to examine affidavits filed by states and union territories and to make recommendations. Last month, it directed a raft of regulators—including the , , , , , , , and —to furnish details of their inspections of colleges, affiliations, and faculty databases.
The Court has said, in no uncertain terms, that private universities cannot run as profit-making enterprises. It asked every private university for audited accounts showing how surplus income was deployed, what was paid to employees, and what fees were collected from students under various heads. Beyond finances, the Court sought information on admission procedures, recruitment processes, the actual teaching work performed by teachers in the previous year, and the role of management in setting question papers and evaluating answer sheets. States and union territories were directed to file affidavits in six weeks.
Legal Significance and Broader Impact
The order sends a clear signal to regulators: public awareness is an integral part of enforcement. When a fraudulent institution can operate from a farmhouse with a person who has no educational qualifications or awareness as a “chairman,” it shows that official approvals or oversight alone are insufficient. The mandate compels regulators to be proactive rather than reactive.
For legal practitioners, the case reinforces that the Supreme Court is prepared to use its to clean up the higher education sector. It also highlights the responsibility of statutory bodies to verify the authenticity of institutions before allowing them to admit students. Institutions that fail to do so may face the consequences of affiliation review and, in extreme cases, criminal action.
For students and parents, the Court’s advisory underlines the need for : checking affiliation with the UGC, recognition by the relevant professional council, and physical verification of an institution’s facilities. The “” framing in the judgment is notable—educational fraud is treated as a public wrong, not merely a contractual dispute between a student and a private institution.
The case is likely to continue as the Court monitors the Union Government’s compliance and the regulatory responses. The directions issued so far already impose substantial documentation obligations on private universities and regulators, and the represents the first step toward equipping prospective students with the information they need to avoid being deceived.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s swift response to the Etah fake medical college exposes a troubling pattern in unregulated education: nominal heads, rented or dilapidated premises, and a complete absence of academic infrastructure. By directing the UGC and all regulators to issue public advisories, the bench has made clear that institutional accountability is not limited to inspections and sanctions—it includes warning the public and ensuring that the regulatory architecture is visible and accessible. As the broader audit of private universities continues, the sector can expect closer scrutiny of its finances, admissions, staffing, and actual teaching practices. For now, the message is simple: learners and parents must verify before they trust.
