SC initiates broad inquiry into governance of private and deemed universities

The Supreme Court has turned a routine student grievance into a nationwide review of how private and deemed universities are created, regulated, and granted benefits across India.

What started as a dispute involving one institution has evolved into an extensive examination of the country’s private higher education system.

The Bench has instructed the union government, every state and union territory, and the University Grants Commission to file separately affirmed affidavits explaining the origin, structure, and privileges of all private, non-government, and deemed universities.

Each response must outline how the institution was set up, the legal basis for its approval, the nature of any land allotment or concession received, and the conditions attached to such approvals.

The case stems from a petition filed by student Ayesha Jain, earlier known as Khushi Jain, who told the Court that Amity University, Noida, refused to update her changed name in official documents and barred her from attendance.

The Court had earlier directed the President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation and the Vice Chancellor of Amity University to appear and submit sworn affidavits, which they did. Their submissions prompted the judges to look beyond the individual complaint.

Although Jain’s name change from a traditionally Hindu name to a Muslim one formed part of the narrative, the court did not interpret the matter through a religious lens.

Instead, the Bench observed that the case revealed deeper concerns about transparency, governance, and institutional accountability across the private university sector.

After hearing arguments, the Court said the matter involved “larger concerns” and expanded the scope of the proceedings.

It has asked governments to spell out the circumstances under which each private university was approved, the purpose of the founding trust or society, its leadership structure, and the process through which its members were appointed.

Details of benefits received, including land granted at concessional rates, must also be disclosed along with information on whether attached conditions were monitored.

The UGC has been asked to file a separate affidavit explaining not only its regulations but also how those rules are enforced.

The Court wants clarity on inspection processes, monitoring systems, audits, and the penalties used in cases of non-compliance. It has directed that the UGC Chairman personally affirm the affidavit.

The judges have also sought information on admissions, faculty recruitment, and internal governance mechanisms, saying that standards must be backed by functioning systems rather than remain on paper.

The order further requires governments to verify whether institutions that claim to operate on a nonprofit model actually follow such a structure and whether any funds are being diverted for non-academic use.

Another focus area is grievance redressal. The Court noted that Jain’s difficulty in updating her name pointed to gaps in complaint-handling processes for students and staff.

Governments and the UGC must now provide details of how such systems function within each institution.

In a significant directive, the Court has ordered the Cabinet Secretary, all Chief Secretaries, and the UGC Chairman to affirm their affidavits personally, warning that any omission or incorrect statement will be treated seriously.