UGC Regulations and State University Laws

This post on UGC Regulations and State University Laws  has been created based on article “UGC regulations or State university laws?” published in The Hindu on 21^st January 2025.

UPSC Syllabus topic- GS Paper 2- Issues Relating to Development and Management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources.

Context: The article addresses the ongoing dispute between the Union Government, represented by the University Grants Commission (UGC), and State Governments concerning the appointment of Vice Chancellors (VCs) in State universities. At its core, the conflict highlights the constitutional and legislative tensions between central regulations and State autonomy in the governance of higher education institutions.

What is the core issue in the dispute between UGC regulations and State University Acts?

1. The central dispute lies in whether UGC regulations, framed by the UGC’s Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and 10 members, can override State University Acts, which are plenary laws passed by State legislatures and assented to by the Governor or President.
2. This conflict reflects broader tensions between Centre-State relations and the scope of delegated legislation.

What is the current situation in Tamil Nadu’s State universities?

1. Vacancies: Six State universities in Tamil Nadu lack Vice Chancellors (VCs), with some positions vacant for over a year.
2. Reason for Stalemate: The Governor (ex-officio Chancellor) insists on including a UGC nominee in VC selection committees as per Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018. The State government, adhering to State University Acts, opposes this on grounds of protecting State autonomy.

How do UGC Regulations and State University Acts differ on VC selection?

1. UGC Stance: Regulation 7.3 mandates a UGC nominee on the VC search committee.
2. State Acts: Committees typically comprise one nominee each from the Chancellor, syndicate, and senate, without UGC involvement.

What complications arise from conflicting Supreme Court judgments?

1. Support for UGC: Some judgments (e.g., Annamalai University and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi) hold that UGC regulations are mandatory and can override State laws.
2. Support for States: Other judgments (e.g., Kalyani Mathivanan and P.J. Dharmaraj) declare UGC regulations merely advisory unless adopted by the State.

What constitutional principles are at stake?

The issue underscores critical constitutional principles:

1. Article 254(1): Governs conflicts between Central and State laws, prioritizing plenary Central laws over State laws in the Concurrent List.
2. Delegated Legislation: Supreme Court rulings assert that subordinate legislation (like UGC regulations) cannot override plenary State laws unless explicitly provided by Parliament.

What are the judicial precedents on delegated legislation?

1. Key Cases:
   1. Tika Ramji v. State of UP (1956): Subordinate legislation cannot repeal plenary State laws.
   2. Indian Express v. Union of India (1984): Subordinate legislation must conform to its parent Act and yield to plenary legislation.
   3. K. Industries v. Union of India (2007): Similar reaffirmation of subordinate legislation’s limitations.
2. Principle: Only Parliament can repeal or override State laws, not Central agencies via delegated legislation.

Is the UGC overreaching its mandate?

1. Legal Limits: The UGC Act, 1956, does not explicitly address VC appointments. UGC’s authority under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) applies to teaching staff and coordination standards but not to university officers like VCs.
2. Judicial View: The Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (1994) affirmed that UGC regulations are advisory, not binding, unless adopted by the State.
3. Policy Shifts: The UGC’s fluctuating rules on VC selection (introduced in 2010, withdrawn in 2013, reinstated in 2018) reflect a focus on administrative control rather than academic standards.

What are the inconsistencies in recent Supreme Court rulings?

1. Mandatory Interpretation: Some judgments assert that UGC regulations, once laid before Parliament, integrate into the UGC Act under Article 254(1).
2. Counterview: Others argue that subordinate legislation remains advisory and does not acquire plenary status unless approved through an affirmative resolution procedure, as highlighted in Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar (1961).

What are the procedures for laying subordinate legislation?

1. Three Methods:
   1. Without further procedure: Subordinate legislation takes effect immediately, with no legislative oversight.
   2. Negative resolution: Takes effect but can be annulled or modified within a limited time.
   3. Affirmative resolution: Becomes valid only after explicit legislative approval.
2. Significance: Courts should recognize only affirmative resolution procedures as integrating rules into parent legislation.

What is the way forward?

1. Need for Clarity: A definitive Constitutional Bench ruling is essential to resolve ambiguities and affirm:
   1. Article 254(1) applies only to plenary Central and State laws.
   2. Delegated legislation remains advisory unless laid through affirmative resolution.
   3. UGC regulations are not binding on State universities unless adopted by the State.
2. Outcome Desired: Such clarity will restore normalcy in State universities and uphold the federal balance of power between the Centre and States.