Back
Upholds NCTE's Authority to Mandate Annual Performance Appraisal Reports from Teacher Education Institutions
In a significant judgment delivered just before Teachers' Day, the has firmly upheld the power of the to require all recognised Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) to submit an annual Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). The ruling, delivered by a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, sets aside a Division Bench judgment that had quashed the regulator’s 2019 public notice mandating such reports. The ’s decision reinforces the principle that possess both express and incidental powers to enforce , and it expands the constellation of "" responsible for realising the constitutional right to education under .
Background of the Dispute
The controversy began when the NCTE issued a Public Notice on , directing all TEIs running NCTE-recognised courses to submit an annual PAR through a designated online portal. The notice prescribed a processing fee of ₹5,000 for Central and State government institutions and ₹15,000 for other institutions, and warned that non-compliance could trigger action under , which permits .
The and other TEIs challenged the notice before the . A Single Judge dismissed the challenge, but the Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that there was no material demonstrating that the PAR proforma had been evolved or approved by the full Council. The Division Bench further ruled that the function of evolving a performance appraisal system under Section 12(k) could not have been delegated to the Member Secretary of the . The NCTE then appealed to the .
’s Reasoning:
The
categorically disagreed with the High Court’s approach. It noted that
empowers the Council to
"evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing
on recognised institutions."
The Court examined the minutes of the Council’s 48th General Body Meeting held on
, where the Council had deliberated on the PAR mechanism as a substitute for an earlier proposal for annual renewal of recognition, which had become mired in litigation. The Council decided to use the PAR to establish a Management Information System (MIS) and authorised the NCTE to proceed through a proforma developed for that purpose.
The bench observed: “We are of the opinion that there is ample empowerment of the Council as well as the to call for annual Performance Appraisal Report from institutions imparting teacher education. To start with, such a power is clearly traceable to Section 12(k) of the Act… and in exercise of such a function, the Council deliberated on the issue and authorised to implement it through a formal proforma.”
The Court went further, holding that even where a is not expressly mentioned in separate words in the statute, it can be sustained if it is incidental and ancillary to the regulator’s statutory functions. “We fail to understand as to how a of a statutory body, empowered to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country could be restrained from calling upon the TEIs to file Performance Appraisal Report. We are of the opinion that even without a specific empowerment under the statute, such a can always be incidental and ancillary to the duties and functions of a regulator.”
The bench drew an analogy with the ’s performance audit of the NCTE itself, noting that it is “but natural and incidental that NCTE would require the stakeholders, over which it exercises the regulatory jurisdiction, to provide the necessary Performance Appraisal Report.”
Expanding the Under the
In a particularly noteworthy part of the judgment, the linked the quality of teacher education directly to the constitutional promise of free and compulsory education under . Referring to its earlier decision in , the Court noted that five had been recognised: the appropriate Government, the local authority, the neighbouring school, the parents/guardians, and the elementary school teacher.
The Court then declared that two additional must be added to this list. The sixth duty bearer is the Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs), which have an obligation to provide education, research and training to equip teachers for different stages of schooling. The seventh duty bearer is the NCTE itself. “We have no hesitation in declaring that the duties to be performed by the Council and the bodies that are constituted along with it, such as the and the Regional Committees, are perhaps the highest of all the ,” the bench observed.
This expansion of the regulatory architecture underlines the Court’s view that teacher education cannot be viewed as an isolated exercise. “The quality of education is closely linked to the quality of teachers in the school system,” the judgment states. The NCTE’s power to demand PARs is thus not a bureaucratic formality but an instrument through which regulatory can operate to fulfil the constitutional mandate.
Rejecting the High Court’s Technical Approach
The was critical of the ’s “” approach. It held that constitutional courts have a to ensure that regulators exercise their legitimate powers effectively, efficiently and in an accountable manner, while preventing them from exercising powers they do not possess. “Courts cannot adopt a technical or a pedantic view of the action taken by the regulators,” the bench stated.
The Court found that the Member Secretary did not act independently or invent a new regulatory requirement. Instead, he was implementing the Council’s decision taken at the 48th General Body Meeting. The , as an executive arm of the Council, was fully empowered to carry forward that mandate.
Impact on the Legal and Educational Landscape
The ruling has immediate practical consequences for approximately 16,000 recognised TEIs across India. They must now mandatorily file PARs along with audited financial statements. The NCTE has already derecognised over 2,500 non-compliant institutions in alone under Section 17 of the Act. The judgment provides legal certainty to the regulator’s enforcement actions and strengthens its hand in weeding out substandard teacher training colleges.
From a broader legal perspective, the judgment is a significant affirmation of the for . The Court has made clear that regulators are not confined to the literal words of their parent statutes; they may adopt measures that are necessary to fulfil the larger statutory mandate, provided such measures are not expressly prohibited. This reasoning is likely to be cited in challenges to regulatory actions across sectors such as healthcare, higher education, and financial services.
The judgment also reinforces the constitutional importance of in . As the Court observed, “ is an essential principle of , resting on responsibility, answerability, and enforceability.” By requiring TEIs to submit PARs, the NCTE is not imposing an arbitrary burden but operationalising a mechanism to ensure that institutions entrusted with training teachers are themselves performing effectively.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in is a landmark ruling that clarifies the scope of regulatory power under the NCTE Act and its nexus with the fundamental right to education. By upholding the PAR mandate and expanding the list of under the , the Court has sent a clear message: regulators must be empowered to regulate in substance, not merely administer the literal words of their statutes. The judgment is expected to have a lasting impact on the quality of teacher education in India and on the jurisprudence of statutory regulation more broadly.
