Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020. The petitioners, Symbiosis Open Education Society and its Principal Director, sought to challenge Regulations 3(A)(i) and 3(B)(b)(ii) which require higher educational institutions to have a minimum NAAC accreditation score of 3.01 or a top-100 NIRF ranking, and to offer the same programme in conventional mode with at least one batch having passed out, before offering programmes through open and distance learning or online modes. The petitioners argued that these requirements were arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly for skill universities like Symbiosis Skills and Professional University, which focus on skill-based, job-oriented programmes and may not fit traditional accreditation parameters. The court, however, held that the UGC, as a regulatory body under the UGC Act, 1956, has the authority to prescribe such eligibility criteria to maintain quality standards in distance and online education. The court found that the requirements were not manifestly arbitrary and served a legitimate purpose of ensuring that only institutions with proven quality offer such programmes. The court also noted that the UGC has the power to grant exemptions under Regulation 1(3), and directed the UGC to consider the petitioners' request for exemption, taking into account the unique character of skill universities. The court further observed that the UGC had already resolved to remove the requirement of one batch passing out, but the formal amendment was pending. The petition was dismissed, with the direction to the UGC to consider the exemption request within a reasonable time.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Subordinate Legislation - Reasonableness - Entry Barriers - The challenge to Regulations 3(A)(i) and 3(B)(b)(ii) of the UGC (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, requiring a minimum NAAC score of 3.01 or top-100 NIRF ranking, and prior offering of the programme in conventional mode with one batch passed out, was dismissed as not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court held that the UGC, as a regulatory body, is entitled to prescribe eligibility criteria to ensure quality in distance and online education, and such criteria are not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Article 14. (Paras 2-10, 15-20) B) Education Law - Skill Universities - Accreditation - Applicability of UGC Regulations - The court held that skill universities, though distinct in focus, are not exempt from the UGC Regulations unless specifically exempted. The UGC has power to grant exemption under Regulation 1(3), and the petitioners' alternative prayer for exemption was directed to be considered by the UGC. The court noted that the UGC had already resolved to remove the one-batch-passed-out requirement, but the formal amendment was pending. (Paras 5-7, 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accreditation/ranking requirement and the requirement of offering the same programme in conventional mode with one batch having passed out, as stipulated in the UGC (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, are constitutionally valid and applicable to skill universities.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions. However, directed the UGC to consider the petitioners' request for exemption under Regulation 1(3), taking into account the character of SSPU as a skill university, within a reasonable time.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of subordinate legislation
- Reasonable classification
- Entry barriers for ODL/OL programmes
- Accreditation requirements
- Prior conventional mode requirement
- Skill universities
- UGC Act
- 1956
