“Let notice be issued to the respondents,” the bench said, adding, “We would like to have the perspective of the Indira Gandhi National Open University/respondent no. 5,” the bench stated
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Supreme Court has asked for responses from the Centre and other parties, including the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), concerning a plea linked to a Madras High Court ruling. This ruling upheld the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) authority over distance education program regulations.
READ ALSO: ‘Permanent Reinstatement of JMI Teachers’: Supreme Court Order Citing UGC Regulations
The issue initiates from an August 21, 2012 UGC order, which limited a university’s territorial jurisdiction for distance learning to its home state. This order prompted a university to file a writ petition, followed by several others.
The Madras High Court’s single bench quashed the clause in a March 12, 2013 order, which the UGC challenged in a division bench.
In its January 20, 2023 judgment, the division bench observed that in the UGC’s August 21, 2012 communication, while acknowledging the distance education programs offered by the university, the UGC stipulated that territorial jurisdiction for offering programs via distance mode would be determined by the decision made during its 40th Distance Education Council (DEC) meeting.
“The decision stated that the territorial jurisdiction of State Universities (both government-funded and private) would be as per their respective Acts and Statutes, but not beyond their state boundaries,”
it noted.
“The University Grants Commission’s Regulations framed in 2020, specifically the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes Online Programmes) Regulations 2020, stipulate territorial jurisdiction and mandate that activities must adhere to the territorial jurisdiction assigned to the university under the Act,”
the division bench stated in its verdict, reinforcing the UGC’s authority in matters related to distance learning.
“The University Grants Commission’s Regulations framed in 2020, specifically the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes Online Programmes) Regulations 2020, stipulate territorial jurisdiction and mandate that activities must adhere to the territorial jurisdiction assigned to the university under the Act,”
the division bench stated in its verdict, reinforcing the UGC’s authority in matters related to distance learning.
The UGC objected to the division bench’s statement that its order would not affect students who had already completed their courses under interim court orders. The UGC approached the Supreme Court, troubled by this part of the verdict.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S K Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, heard the UGC’s plea. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UGC, pointed out the high court’s reference to universities commercializing education through inadequate franchise agreements and offering technical degrees via distance education.
The judgment stated that there are no such territorial restrictions for online education programs. What the UGC found problematic was the part of the division bench’s order which stated,
“We hasten to add that this (its order) shall not affect the students who have already undergone the courses pursuant to the interim orders of this court.”
The UGC has approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved by this aspect of the division bench’s order.
The division bench had noted in its verdict that due to subsequent developments and the fact that students who enrolled during the academic year 2012–13 had completed their courses, completely setting aside the orders of the single bench would lead to undesirable consequences.
Mehta referenced a previous Supreme Court judgment, noting that certain paragraphs addressed this issue.
“Upon examination, we find that the matter pertained to technical degrees. To better understand the scope of the case, we request the petitioners to file an affidavit specifying which degrees are in question. This will help us determine if the impugned judgment can be upheld for some courses while requiring interference for others,”
the bench stated in its order.
Mehta informed the bench that, given the sector’s “unregulated” nature, the UGC might not have complete information, and it would be appropriate to issue notices to the respondent universities to provide this information.
READ ALSO: UGC NET Exam Cancelled | What is the New ‘Anti-Paper Leak’ Law? And Punishments Under it?
“Let notice be issued to the respondents,” the bench said, adding, “We would like to have the perspective of the Indira Gandhi National Open University/respondent no. 5,”
the apex court stated.
The Supreme Court has asked the UGC to file an affidavit detailing the degrees in question and has issued notices to the respondent universities, including IGNOU, to provide their views.
