Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms UGC's Supremacy in Granting College Autonomy, Mandates University Compliance

Bilaspur , CG - The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling delivered on May 8, 2025, by Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge, has decisively established that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations concerning the conferment of autonomous status upon colleges are binding on universities, irrespective of whether the university has formally adopted these regulations. The Court directed Atal Vihari Bajpayee University, Bilaspur , to issue the necessary notification for D.P. Vipra College 's autonomous status within 30 days, upholding the UGC's decision.

Case Overview: A Tale of Two Petitions

The judgment addressed two interconnected writ petitions:

WPC No. 4092 of 2024: Filed by D.P. Vipra College and its Principal, Dr. Madhusudan Tamboli , against Atal Vihari Bajpayee University and the UGC. The College sought a directive for the University to notify its autonomous status as granted by the UGC under the "University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023" (Regulations of 2023). The College argued that the University's delay was hindering its autonomous functioning and causing student unrest.

WPC No. 778 of 2025: Filed by Atal Vihari Bajpayee University against D.P. Vipra College and the UGC. The University sought to quash the UGC's letter dated January 19, 2024, which conferred autonomous status upon the College, arguing that the UGC could not compel the University to issue such a notification, especially given alleged deficiencies at the College.

The core issue revolved around the University's refusal to implement the UGC's directive granting autonomous status to D.P. Vipra College , primarily on the grounds that the University had not adopted the UGC Regulations of 2023 and had concerns about the College's standards.

Key Arguments Presented

D.P. Vipra College 's Stance (Petitioners in WPC No.4092/2024): * The University's failure to issue the notification within 30 days, as mandated by Regulation 7.2 of the Regulations of 2023, was arbitrary and illegal. * The UGC had conferred autonomous status on January 19, 2024, and the University was obliged to follow this directive. * The University's inaction was detrimental to the students and the College's administration. * Supreme Court precedents establish that UGC regulations are binding on all universities.

Atal Vihari Bajpayee University's Contentions (Petitioner in WPC No.778/2025): * The UGC's letters were illegal, arbitrary, and procedurally flawed. * The University, governed by State legislation (Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam 1973), had not adopted the UGC Regulations of 2023, and its own statutes (Statute No. 27 & 28) should prevail. * The College had deficiencies, failed to provide required information, and operated certain programs (like BBA) without proper sanctions. * The UGC granted autonomy without the University's NOC/recommendation and allegedly ignored the University's objections regarding the College's suitability. * The University's Executive Council had decided to ask the UGC to review its decision.

University Grants Commission's (UGC) Position: * The University was given an opportunity to raise objections on the UGC portal but failed to do so within the stipulated time. * The Regulations of 2023 are mandatory for all universities. * The UGC had considered and responded to the University's subsequent objections (letter dated March 15, 2024). * The University's refusal to notify the autonomous status contravened the UGC's decision and the Regulations.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the constitutional framework, the UGC Act, 1956, and the Regulations of 2023.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework: The Court referenced Article 246 of the Constitution, noting that education is a subject in the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 25), but "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education" falls under the Union List (List I, Entry 66). The Court emphasized that in case of conflict, Central legislation prevails.

The Court highlighted Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 , which empowers the UGC to make regulations. The Regulations of 2023, framed under this power, aim to promote college autonomy to enhance higher education quality. Specifically, Regulation 4.2 obligates the parent University: > "To issue notification within 30 days for a College to function as an autonomous entity once the autonomous status is conferred on the College by UGC."

And Regulation 7.2 states: > "If the parent University does not respond on the UGC portal within 30 working days, it shall be presumed that the parent University has no objection to the processing of the application by the UGC for conferment of autonomous status."

Binding Nature of UGC Regulations: The Court strongly refuted the University's argument that UGC regulations are not binding unless adopted. It cited a series of Supreme Court judgments:

* Annamalai University v. Secretary to the Government (2009) 4 SCC 590: "The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open."

* Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015) 6 SCC 363: UGC Regulations, though subordinate legislation, "has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies."

* Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179: "In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail..."

* Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1473: Rejected the argument that UGC Regulations are inapplicable unless adopted by the State, stating Union law prevails in case of conflict.

The Court expressed disapproval of the University's stance, noting an affidavit filed by the University asserting non-bindingness of UGC regulations as a "deliberate misinterpretation of the law" and potentially "gross contempt of the Court." The judgment stated: > "This is the clear case of not only flouting the constitutional mandate by the respondent-University but also a case of gross contempt of the Court as false and misleading affidavit has been filed by the University." (Para 37)

The Court further elaborated on the purpose of autonomy: > "...the only safe and better way to improve the quality of undergraduate education is to de-link most of the Colleges from the affiliating structure. It was found that Colleges with academic and operative freedom are doing better and have more credibility..." (Para 45)

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found the University's arguments unconvincing and its refusal to notify the College's autonomous status unlawful.

Writ Petition (C) No. 4092 of 2024 (filed by D.P. Vipra College ) was allowed. The Court directed Atal Vihari Bajpayee University "to issue necessary notification regarding autonomous status of petitioner-College in accordance with the Regulations of 2023, particularly Regulation No.7.2 under which respondent-University is obliged to issue notification regarding autonomous status of petitioner-College within 30 days."

Writ Petition (C) No. 778 of 2025 (filed by Atal Vihari Bajpayee University) was dismissed as being "sans merit."

This judgment reinforces the UGC's pivotal role in maintaining and enhancing standards in higher education across India. It clarifies that universities affiliated with the UGC are bound by its regulations, including those pertaining to the grant of autonomy to colleges, and cannot cite non-adoption as a reason for non-compliance. The decision is a significant affirmation of the national framework for higher education governance.