Madras High Court Considers Validity of University Orders on UGC Regulations. Autonomous Colleges Filed Petitions Raising Questions on Compliance with UGC Norms versus Autonomy.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Writ Petition Nos.18165, 18315, 18923, 19271,

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 186

WP.Nos.18165, 18315, 18923, 19271, 19318 & 19319 of 2023 and 24801 of 2024

2025-03-27

N. Anand Venkatesh

2025:MHC:799

The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College, The Principal Secretary, Madras Christian College, The Secretary & Correspondent, Loyola College, The Secretary, Stella Maris College, The Secretary, Sacred Heart Arts & Science College

The State of Tamil Nadu, The Director of Collegiate Education, The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai Region, The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, The University of Madras, The Annamalai University, The University Grants Commission

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash university letters on UGC regulation compliance

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to impugned orders issued by respondent universities and quash them

Procedural History

Writ petitions filed under Article 226; heard on 2025-03-20; reserved on same day; judgment delivered on 2025-03-27

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Considers Validity of University Orders on UGC Regulations. Autonomous Colleges Filed Petitions Raising Questions on Compliance with UGC Norms versus Autonomy.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of TDS Refund Under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee Failed to Establish That Payments to Foreign Collaborator Were Not Royalty Under Section 9(1)(vi) Read with DTAA.