Recently, the Delhi High Court heard a challenge by Singhania University against a UGC order barring it from enrolling PhD scholars for five years starting 2025-26. The order, based on alleged violations of the University Grants Commission, PhD. regulations raised questions about whether the University Grants Commission had the statutory authority to impose such a penalty and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. The case put the Commission’s powers and procedural fairness under intense judicial scrutiny.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an order passed by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UGC”), which debarred Singhania University from enrolling students under its PhD program for five academic years, directing the University to immediately discontinue admissions. The order was based on findings by a UGC Standing Committee that the University violated minimum standards and procedures for awarding PhD degrees during the years 2016 to 2020. The University challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, contending that the UGC had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and that principles of natural justice were violated as critical documents were not shared and no personal hearing was granted. It also cited a stay order by the Rajasthan High Court restraining coercive action by the UGC, which was disregarded in issuing the penalty.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the procedure adopted by the UGC violated fundamental principles of natural justice. The sub-committee’s report and the minutes of the standing committee meeting, which were relied upon heavily in the show cause notice and the impugned order, were not shared with the University, denying it a fair opportunity to defend itself effectively. Furthermore, the University asserted that no oral hearing was provided before imposing such a severe penalty. Apart from procedural grievances, the University contended that the UGC lacked jurisdiction to debar a statutory university from enrolling PhD students since the right to confer degrees is vested under Section 22of the UGC Act, with such universities and not with the UGC. The University emphasised its autonomy and highlighted a stay order passed by the Rajasthan High Court restraining coercive action by the UGC, which was disregarded.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the Respondent argued that the UGC maintained that its role includes maintaining and coordinating standards of higher education, as per Sections 12 and 12(j) of the UGC Act, and that taking action to curb malpractices in PhD admissions was part of this mandate. The UGC submitted that irregularities such as admissions below prescribed criteria justified enforcement action to protect academic standards. It further submitted that the University had opportunities to respond in writing and participate in meetings, but failed to provide satisfactory explanations. The non-disclosure of certain documents was argued not to have caused prejudice, and an oral hearing was not mandatory once a show cause notice and a right to reply in writing had been provided.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the University had claimed non-disclosure of key documents such as the sub-committee report and UGC meeting minutes, alleging this was a breach of natural justice since it deprived the University of a Fair Opportunity to respond. However, the Court found that the University’s reply did not dispute or explain any of the alleged breaches mentioned in these documents, stating that “In view of the aforenoted stand taken by the University in its reply to SCN, non-furnishing of said documents would have made no difference. Furthermore, in the said reply, the breaches and defaults alleged in the report of the sub-committee or the minutes of the Standing Committee were not disputed nor the same were they explained.”
The Court emphasised that “Mere breach of principles of natural justice is not sufficient, such breach of rules must also entail prejudice.” Regarding procedural fairness, the Court held that “Once the show-cause notice is given, an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice is afforded, it is not even necessary to give an oral hearing.”
On jurisdictional issue, the Court rigorously analysed the UGC Act and Regulations and concluded that the power exercised by UGC to debar the University from enrolling Ph.D. scholars was without statutory authority “There exists no express penal provision specified either under the UGC Act or the Regulations invoked, which authorises the UGC to impose the penalty debarring the University from offering Ph.D. programmes for the next five years.” The judgment made clear the penalty was “neither traceable to the provisions of the UGC Act nor to the Regulations which have been invoked in the impugned order.” The Court emphasised that “Awarding of penalty in the absence of express provisions ... cannot be justified by way of implication under the broader regulatory functions or powers of the UGC.” The Court further reiterated the principle that statutory bodies can exercise only those powers expressly granted and any action beyond is ultra vires “Powers of a statutory body like UGC are derived, controlled and restricted by the statutes which create them and ... Any action ... in excess of their power ... is ultra vires.”
The Decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the UGC’s impugned order along with the accompanying public notice. It declared that the UGC’s action of debarring the University from enrolling PhD scholars was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the UGC Act and relevant rules. Accordingly, the penalty order was set aside as null and void.
Case Title: Singhania University v. University Grants Commission
Case No.: W.P.C. 2390/2025 & Connected Matters
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikas Mahajan
Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Parag P. Tripathi, Advocate Aslam Ahmed, Advocate Ravi Singhania, Advocate Rohit Jain, Advocate Shabies A. Nabi, Advocate Mishika Bajpai, and Advocate Harilal S.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Advocate Vishal Agrawal for the University Grants Commission
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
