REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4016 OF 2020

            (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11482 OF 2020)

APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL 

UNIVERSITY & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT 

AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.    ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the

Kerala High Court directing the Vice Chancellor of the University

to   reconsider   the   application   for   affiliation   of   a   new   B.Tech

course,   submitted   by   the   first   respondent,   which   is   a   self­

financing Engineering College, solely on the basis of the extension

of   approval   granted   by   the   All   India   Council   for   Technical

Education (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE”), the APJ Abdul

Kalam Technological University, which is a State University and

its Vice Chancellor have come up with this appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior

Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant­University,   Mr.   S.

Krishnamoorthy,   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   first

respondent­College,   Ms.   Priyanka   Prakash,   learned   Counsel

appearing for the second respondent­State and Mr. Anil Soni,

learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent­AICTE. We

have   also   heard   Mr.   C.   Arayama   Sundaram,   Mr.   Gopal

Sankaranarayanan   and   Mr.   P.S.   Narasimha,   learned   Senior

Counsel   appearing   for   the   applicants   seeking

intervention/impleadment and vacation of stay.

4. It appears that despite the mushroom growth of the self­

financing Engineering Institutions in the neighbouring States, the

2

State of Kerala had only 15 Engineering Colleges with an annual

intake of only 4844 students till the year 1997. But in the past

more than two decades, there was a spurt in the growth of self­

financing Engineering Institutions in the State. The position as on

date is that there are 149 Engineering Colleges in the State of

Kerala with a total annual permitted intake of 47,420 seats.

5. In   addition,   there   are   also   six   Central   Government

Engineering Institutions in the State.

6. Therefore, with a view to regulate technical education in

the State, the State of Kerala enacted the APJ Abdul Kalam

Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the

University   Act”).   Some   of   the   Objects   of   the   University   as

indicated in Section 5 of the Act are as follows:­

“xxxx

(b)   to   improve   the   academic   standards   of   the   graduate,

postgraduate   and   research   programmes   in   engineering

sciences, technology and management.

(c)to ensure the academic standards of all colleges and

institutions affiliated to the University.

xxxxx

(k)to   substantially   increase   enrolment   in   Postgraduate

education   and   research   programmes   in   the   colleges   and

3

institutions with the aim of promoting engineering research,

development and innovation;

(l)to support the establishment of Centres of excellence

for   multidisciplinary   applied   research   in  specific  thematic

areas;

(m)to   improve   the   learning   skills   of   the   students   by

constantly and continuously improving and upgrading the

academic quality and standards of faculty;

(n)to introduce and sustain innovative systematic quality

improvement   programmes   in   the   field   of   technical

education.”

7. The   powers   and  functions   of  the  University  enlisted  in

Section 8 include the following:

“xxxxxxx

(iii)   to   lay   down   the   norms   and   standards   for   the

establishment,   maintenance,   administration,   supervision

and recognition of colleges and centres maintained by the

University.

(iv)to affiliate to itself institutions as constituent colleges

or autonomous colleges or regular colleges or colleges with

academic autonomy in accordance with the provisions of this

Act and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations and to

withdraw   affiliation   of   colleges   obtained   in   violation   of

Statutes of the University.;

(v)to   confer   academic   autonomy   to   affiliated   colleges,

institutions   or   a   department   of   the   affiliated   colleges   or

institutions or a department maintained by the University.

xxxxxxxx

(vii)to   hold   examinations   and   to   confer   degrees,

postgraduate   degrees,   diplomas,   certificates   and   other

academic distinctions to persons who, ­

4

(a)  shall have pursued a prescribed course of study in

the University or any college or institutions thereunder

and shall have passed the prescribed examinations of

the   University   unless   exempted   therefrom   in   the

manner prescribed; or

(b) shall have carried on research satisfactorily under

conditions as may be prescribed and which has been

duly evaluated; 

xxxxxxxx

(xiv)  to provide for the inspection of affiliated colleges and to

issue such directions as the University may deem fit;

xxxxxxxx

(xviii) to recommend to the Government to take over, in the

public interest, the management of colleges or institutions

where irregularities or dereliction of criminal nature by the

management of such college or institution are  prima facie

evident   to   the   committee   of   enquiry   appointed   by   the

University.”

8. Sections 60 to 66 provide for affiliation and recognition,

procedure for permission, continuation of affiliation, withdrawal

of affiliation etc. Section 60 of the Act, which prescribes the

conditions subject to which affiliation can be granted by the

University, reads as follows:

60.   Affiliation   and   recognition.­   (1)   The   University   can

affiliate   any   of   the   Engineering   Colleges   or   Institutions

imparting education in technology owned by Government of

Kerala or Government controlled societies, Private aided and

Private unaided self­financing educational agencies, which,

before   the   date   of   commencement   of   this   Act   remained

affiliated   to   the   different   Universities,   except   Deemed

Universities in the State of Kerala, provided they meet the

criteria   prescribed   under   this   Act,   Ordinances   and

5

Statutes   for   affiliation,   including   but   not   confined   to

availability   of   faculty,   administrative   machinery,

infrastructure (buildings, laboratories etc.) which will be

laid down by the University from time to time under the

provisions of this Act. Such colleges meeting the specified

criteria   can   be   affiliated   to   the   University   as   (i)   regular

colleges   or   (ii)   autonomous   colleges   (iii)   colleges   with

academic autonomy or (iv) institutions. The affiliation of such

institutions to other Universities in the State except Deemed

Universities, shall stand transferred to the University on and

from the date of commencement of this Act, subject to the

conditions that the affiliation of these colleges or institutions

in respect of the students admitted to Engineering courses

shall continue till those batches of students complete their

courses,   the   examinations   of   all   such   students   shall   be

conducted by the Universities to which they were attached,

degrees,   postgraduate   degrees   or   diplomas   or   other

distinctions shall be awarded by such Universities:

Provided   that   the   institutions   in   the   technological

branch maintained by other Universities of the State as their

departments or their respective constituent colleges or the

engineering   colleges   or   teaching   institutions   under   the

deemed universities and the National Institutes established

by   the   Central   Government   shall   not   come   under   the

jurisdiction of the University.

(2) The Educational Agency applying for affiliation

or   recognition   and   whose   college   or   institution   has   been

granted affiliation or recognition, shall give and comply with

the following undertaking:­

(i) that the provisions of this Act, or any other Acts

passed by the State Legislature related to Engineering

field in the State, rules made thereunder and Statutes,

Ordinances,   Regulations,   standing   orders   and

directions of the University shall be observed;

(ii) that there shall be a separate Governing Body or

Managing Council for an affiliated college or group of

colleges   receiving   financial   assistance   from   the

Government or the University;

(iii) that the number of students admitted for courses

of study shall not exceed the limits prescribed from

6

time   to   time,   by   the   University,   the   Government,

Central   or   State   Councils   or   authorities   in   the

concerned discipline as the case may be;

(iv) that there shall be suitable and adequate physical

facilities   such   as   building,   laboratories,   libraries,

equipments required for teaching and research, hostel

and other infrastructure facilities as the case may be,

prescribed by Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations;

(v)that   the   financial   resources   of   the   college   or

institution shall be such as to make due provision for

its continued maintenance and working;

(vi) that the strength and qualifications of teaching and

non­teaching   staff   of   the   affiliated   colleges   and   the

emoluments and the terms and conditions of service of

the staff of affiliated colleges shall be such as may be

prescribed   by   the   University   and   which   shall   be

sufficient to make due provision for courses of study,

teaching or training or research, efficiently;

(vii) that the services of all teaching and non­teaching

employees   and   the   facilities   of   the   college   to   be

affiliated   shall   be   made   available   for   conducting

examinations and for promoting other activities of the

University;

(viii)   that   the   directions   and   orders   issued   by   the

Chancellor, Vice­Chancellor and other officers of the

University in exercise of the powers conferred on them

under the provisions of this Act, Statutes, Ordinances

and Regulations or any other Acts passed by the State

Legislature in this regard, shall be complied with;

(ix) that, there shall be no transfer of the management

or ownership of the college without previous sanction

of the University;

(x) that the college or institution shall not be closed

without previous sanction of the University;

(xi) that in the event of disaffiliation or de­recognition

or closure of the college or institution, all the assets of

7

the   college   or   institution   including   building   and

equipment which have been constructed or created out

of   the   amount   paid   as   a   grant­in­aid   by   the

Government   or   the   University   Grants   Commission

shall vest in the Government.

9. While section 60 extracted above, lays down in detail, the

criteria for and the conditions subject to which, affiliation can be

granted   to   an   institution,   Section   63   of   the   University   Act

indicates the procedure for continuation of affiliation. It reads as

follows:

63. Continuation of affiliation. ­ (1) The affiliated college or

recognised   institution   may   apply   for   continuation   of

affiliation or recognition for the courses of study for which

affiliation or recognition was granted ordinarily six months

prior to the date of expiry of such affiliation or recognition.

The   University   shall   follow   the   procedure   prescribed   in

Statutes, for grant of continuation of affiliation.

(2) The affiliated college or recognised institution may

apply for affiliation or recognition for additional courses

of   study   and   the   same   shall   be   considered   by   the

University following the procedures or rules prescribed

in this regard in the Statutes.

(3) An affiliated college with at least six years standing as an

affiliated college may apply for permanent affiliation in the

manner   as   may   be   prescribed   in   the   Statutes   and   the

University shall consider such applications in such manner

as may be prescribed.

10.The first respondent is a self­financing Institution which

was earlier offering B.Tech courses in five disciplines with an

annual permitted intake of 60 students in each of the disciplines.

8

After closing the course in one particular discipline, the first

respondent applied in February/March­2020 seeking approval of

the AICTE for starting a new course in “Artificial Intelligence and

Data Science” with a permitted annual intake of 60 students,

from   the   Academic   Year   2020­21.   The   application   was   in

accordance with the AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2020­21,

issued in terms of the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical

Institutions) Regulations, 2020.

11.On   13.06.2020,   AICTE   granted   approval   to   the   first

respondent, for starting the newly proposed course, even while

granting extension of approval for the existing courses.

12.Simultaneously with the submission of the application to

the AICTE, the first respondent also submitted an application for

affiliation to the appellant­University, in February/March 2020.

The first respondent also paid the Inspection Fee/Affiliation Fee.

13.But even before the first respondent took a decision to start

a new course, something happened in the State of Kerala. A study

conducted by a group of academic experts seems to have revealed

that there was a steady decline in the actual intake of students in

9

self­financing   engineering   colleges.   As   against   the   permitted

intake of 58,165 students for the academic year 2015­16, only

37,007 students got admitted leaving 19,468 seats vacant. The

number of vacant seats rose to 20,038 in the academic year

2016­17 and to 22,819 in the academic year 2017­18.

14.Therefore, based on the study conducted by the group of

academic experts, the Government issued an order in G.O. (Rt)

No.1039/2019/HEDN dated 22.06.2019. It was directed by this

Order that permission for starting new courses in Engineering

shall be granted only if three conditions are satisfied namely: (i)

that   the   college   should   have   NBA   accreditation;  (ii)  that   the

admission of students in the previous academic years should

have been more than 50% of the sanctioned intake; and (iii) that

the new course should be innovative.

15.Following the said Government order, the Syndicate of the

appellant­University resolved in its meeting held on 04.02.2020 to

fix the following norms for the grant of affiliation to new programs

based on the recommendation of the Academic Council: (i) that at

10

least one of the existing programs should have NBA accreditation;

(ii)  that   the   average   annual   intake   of   the   institution  for   the

previous three years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned

intake;  (iii)  that the proposed programme should have AICTE

approval and NOC from State Government; and   (iv)  that the

proposed programme should have industry demand/employment

potential.

16.Thereafter,   a   sub­committee   was   constituted   for   the

purpose   of   recommending   affiliation   for   new   courses   or

programmes   for   the   affiliated   colleges   who   have   submitted

applications for starting new programmes. This sub­committee

resolved   in   its   meeting   held   on   20.03.2020   to   suggest   the

following criteria for the consideration of the Syndicate of the

University:­

1. The   sub­committee   examined   all   the   50   proposals

received till 19­03­2020 from various colleges for granting

affiliation   to   new   programs/additional   intakes.   Upon

scrutiny   of   each   application   in   line   with   the   criteria

suggested by the Syndicate as cited above, 21 institutions

are found to be eligible.  The details of these 21 institutions

and programs/courses applied are attached as Annexure 1.

Accordingly,   the   sub­committee   recommends   that   the

proposals   from   these   21   institutions   for   starting   new

11

programs/additional intake be favourably considered by the

Syndicate for issuing NOC for granting affiliation.

2. The sub­committee recommends that the applications

for   BVoC   courses   be   considered   by   the   Syndicate   for

appropriate policy decisions.

3. The sub­committee recommends that the applications

for BVoC courses be considered by the Syndicate/refer the

matter to the Director of Technical Education for appropriate

policy decisions.

4. The   sub­committee   identified   two   case   wherein   the

institutions   are   having   NBA   accreditation   but   with

percentage intake less than 50.  These two cases are referred

to the Syndicate for appropriate decisions.

5. The sub­committee recommends that for the courses

listed in Annexure 1 detailed syllabus and curriculum are to

be   framed   in   a   time   bound   manner   well   before   the

commencement of the courses.

17.Finding   that   the   Government   Order   G.O.   (Rt)   No.1039,

dated   22.06.2019   and   the   resolution   of   the   Syndicate   dated

04.02.2020 has led to an unfavourable climate with the sub­

committee not recommending the grant of affiliation for their

proposed new course, the first respondent­College filed a writ

petition in Writ Petition (C) No.12709 of 2020 before the High

Court of Kerala. It appears that the writ petition was filed on

23.06.2020, seeking the following reliefs namely: (i) to set aside

the   Government   Order   dated   22.06.2019;  (ii)  to   direct   the

12

University to grant affiliation for the newly proposed course for

the academic year 2020­21;  (iii)  to quash the resolution of the

Syndicate dated 04.02.2020, as communicated by the Order of

the Registrar of the University dated 10.06.2020; (iv) to direct the

University   to   consider   the   application   for   affiliation   of   the

proposed   course,   without   insisting   on   NBA   accreditation   and

without insisting on NOC from State Government; and (v) to grant

affiliation for the newly proposed course without insisting on any

criteria based upon the report of the sub­committee.

18.By sheer coincidence, the 13

th  

meeting of the Syndicate of

the   appellant­University   was   held   on   24.06.2020,   the   day

following the date on which the first respondent College filed the

writ petition before the High Court. This Syndicate meeting was

chaired by the Vice Chancellor of the University. It was attended

by   a   total   of   nine  persons,   of   which   one   was   the   Principal

Secretary, Higher Education Department of the Government of

Kerala, and another was the Director of Technical Education.

The   rest   were   academicians.   In   this   meeting,   the   Syndicate

examined   the   list   of   colleges   which   had   applied   for   new

13

courses/programmes, without any NBA accreditation. Finding

that even colleges which did not have NBA accreditation had

been granted approval by AICTE, the Syndicate resolved in its

meeting held on 24.06.2020 that affiliation can be granted even

to colleges without NBA accreditation, subject to the satisfaction

of the following criteria: (i) that the Institution should have more

than   50%   pass   for   the   outgoing   students   at   the   time   of

application for affiliation;  (ii)  that the Institution should have

most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”; and (iii) that

the  Institution should have three years average intake of more

than 50% of the sanctioned intake.

19.Though   the   first   respondent   filed   the   writ   petition   on

23.06.2020   challenging   the   order   of   the   University   dated

10.06.2020 and though the earlier Syndicate Resolution dated

04.02.2020   (on   which   the   order   of   the   Registrar   dated

10.06.2020 was based) stood modified by the next Syndicate

Resolution dated 24.06.2020, the first respondent did not seek

any amendment of the prayer. The net result was that one of the

orders (of the University) impugned in the writ petition stood

14

amended,   by   the   time   the   writ   petition   was   heard,   but   the

amendment was not under challenge.

20.The writ petition filed by the first respondent challenging

the   denial   of   affiliation   for   starting   a   new   B.Tech   course   in

Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, was taken up along with

similar writ petitions filed by other colleges (including those filed

by the Colleges, which have now come up with applications for

intervention/impleadment and for vacation of interim order) and

all of them were disposed of by a learned Judge of the High Court

by a Judgment dated 06.08.2020. By the said Judgment, the

learned Judge held: (i) that in view of the requirements of Section

14   of   the   University   Act   read   with   Section   30(2)(xiv),   the

Syndicate cannot be said to be lacking in authority for fixing the

norms for affiliation; (ii) that the norms fixed by the Syndicate in

its resolution dated 04.02.2020 as communicated by the Order of

the   Registrar   dated   10.06.2020   would   be   applicable   to   both

programmes and courses; (iii) that in view of the resolution of the

Syndicate dated 24.06.2020, NOC from the State Government

15

and NBA accreditation are no longer necessary;  (iv)  that as a

consequence, the State Government Order dated 22.06.2019 was

liable to be set aside; and  (v)  that the University may have to

reconsider one portion of its decision dated 24.06.2020, after

taking note of the recommendation contained in Annexure 1 and

Clause 7 of Annexure 14 of the Approval Process Handbook and a

clarification issued by AICTE. Annexure 1 of the Approval Process

Handbook   contained   a   recommendation   to   discourage   the

creation   of   additional   seats   in   traditional   disciplines,   but   to

encourage conversion of current capacity in traditional disciplines

to emerging new technologies. Clause 7 of Annexure 14 made

accreditation   mandatory   for   increase   in   intake/starting   new

courses. 

21.Not   satisfied   with   the   partial   relief   granted   and   the

directions issued by the learned Judge, the first respondent filed

a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No.1073 of 2020 before the Division

Bench   of   the   High   Court.   The   other   Colleges   who   were   writ

petitioners, also filed separate writ appeals.

16

22.By the common Judgment dated 08.09.2020 impugned in

this appeal, the Division Bench partially allowed the writ appeals,

holding: (i) that the Syndicate did not have the power to take the

decisions dated 04.02.2020 (as communicated on 10.06.2020)

and 24.06.2020, as there was no University Statute in force on

that   date   and   that   in   the   absence   of   the   Statute,   the   Vice­

Chancellor alone had the power under section 14(6) of the Act to

make any recommendation to the Board of Governors in the

matter of affiliation; and (ii) that the University cannot go beyond

AICTE Regulations. 

23.Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the

Kerala High Court, the University has come up with the above

appeal. It is stated across the Bar that the appellant­University

has   filed   similar   appeals   against   the   very   same   impugned

Judgment and those appeals are yet to be numbered.

24.Though the learned Single Judge dealt with several issues,

the focus of the Division Bench was mainly on two issues namely:

(i) the power of the Syndicate to lay down norms for the grant of

17

affiliation; and (ii) the very power of the University to go beyond

the AICTE Regulations.

25.On   the   first   issue   revolving   around   the   power   of   the

Syndicate, the High Court held that under Section 63(2) of the

State University Act, an application for affiliation or recognition

for additional courses of study made by a College which already

holds affiliation, should be considered by the University following

the procedure prescribed in the Statutes. Admittedly the first

University Statute was issued only on 07.08.2020. Therefore the

Division Bench of the High Court held that on the date on which

the applications for affiliation for additional courses of study were

made by the Colleges and processed by the University, there was

no Statute of the University.  Hence the Division Bench concluded

that the only option available in such circumstances where there

was no Statute, was for the Vice Chancellor to take recourse to

the power available under Section 14(6) of the University Act. But

this power, in the opinion of the High Court, has to be exercised

by   the   Vice   Chancellor   with   the   approval   of   the   Board   of

Governors. As this was not done, the Division Bench remanded

18

the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to follow the course of

action available under Section 14(6).

26.It is relevant to note at this stage that the power of the

Syndicate to lay down norms and standards for affiliation, which

it did as per its Resolutions, was upheld by the learned Single

Judge, on a reading of Section 30(2)(xiv) of the Act. The Judgment

of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   delivered   on   06.08.2020,

upholding the power of the Syndicate, even in the absence of the

Statutes of the University, to lay down norms for affiliation for

additional   courses.   However,   on   the   very   next   day   namely

07.08.2020, the First Statutes of the University were also issued.

27.Therefore, when the colleges filed writ appeals and argued

about the procedure to be followed under Section 14(6) in the

absence of the Statutes, the appellant­University relied upon the

Statutes   issued   on   07.08.2020   and   the   power   of   ratification.

Statute No.93 was brought to the notice of the Division Bench to

show that all matters relating to affiliation fell within the scope of

the powers of the Syndicate. But the Division Bench not only

rejected the argument of ratification, but also rejected the reliance

19

placed upon Statute No.93 on the ground that the power under

Statute No.93 may relate only to the grant of affiliation of a

teaching course or any subject in a teaching course, conducted in

any of the colleges which are not affiliated.

28.But we do not think that the view taken by the Division

Bench both with regard to the prescription contained in Section

63(2) and with regard to the powers of the Vice Chancellor under

Section 14(6), is in sync with the scheme of the University Act.

Section 63(2) which we have already extracted in paragraph 9

above, actually deals with the grant of affiliation or recognition for

additional   courses   to   an   affiliated   college   or   recognized

institution. This provision does not deal with the laying down of

norms and standards. The Division Bench overlooked the fact

that what was in issue before the Court was a Resolution passed

by the Syndicate, first on 04.02.2020 as communicated by the

Order of the Registrar dated 10.06.2020 and then on 24.06.2020.

In other words what was in question in the writ petitions filed by

the Colleges, was not merely the individual act of grant or denial

20

of affiliation for additional courses. The challenge was to the

norms fixed by the Syndicate in its meetings dated 04.02.2020

and 24.06.2020 for the grant of affiliation for additional courses.

Section 63(2) does not deal with the issue of laying down norms

and standards, but deals only with the grant of affiliation for

additional courses in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

the Statutes.

29.The manner in which the Division Bench of the High Court

construed Section 14(6), is also not correct. It will be useful to

extract Sub­sections (5), (6) and (14) of Section 14. They read as

follows:

“14.Powers of the Vice­Chancellor

xxxx

(5)If there are reasonable grounds for the Vice­Chancellor

to   believe   that   there   is   an   emergency   which   requires

immediate action to be taken, he shall, take such action as

he thinks necessary, and shall, submit for approval in the

next meeting, the grounds for the emergency and the action

taken   by   him,   to   such   authority   or   body   which,   in   the

ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter. In the

event of a difference arising between the Vice­Chancellor and

the   authority,   on   the   issue   of   existence   of   such   an

emergency, or on the authority, on the issue of existence of

such an emergency, or on the action taken or on both, the

matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision

shall be final.

21

(6)Where   any   matter   is   required   to   be   regulated   by

Statutes or Regulations but no Statues or Regulations have

been made in that behalf, the Vice­Chancellor shall for the

time being, regulate the matter by issuing such directions as

the Vice­Chancellor thinks necessary, and shall, as soon as

may be, submit them before the Board of Governors or other

authority or body concerned for approval.

xxxx

(14)The Vice­Chancellor shall exercise such other powers

and perform such other duties as may be conferred upon the

Vice­Chancellor by or under this Act and Statutes.”

30.On a reading of Section 14(6), the High court came to the

conclusion that the Vice Chancellor, in the absence of Statutes,

may be entitled to issue directions for regulating certain matters,

but if he does so, he has to take the approval of the Board of

Governors. But the High Court overlooked several facts. First is

that Sub­section (5) of Section 14 confers emergency powers on

the Vice Chancellor and Sub­section (14) recognises the residuary

powers of the Vice Chancellor. Second is that even sub­section (6)

uses the words “Board of Governors or other authority or

body concerned for approval”.  Therefore, it is not necessary

that the Vice­Chancellor, after issuing directions, should take the

approval of the Board of Governors alone. He was entitled to take

the approval of “the other authority or body concerned”.

22

31.In   the   case   on   hand,   the   Syndicate   of   the   University

comprised of nine persons, including the Vice Chancellor, the

Principal Secretary to the Higher Education Department of the

Government of Kerala, the Director of Technical Education and a

few   academicians.   All   that   the   Syndicate   wanted   from   the

Colleges   seeking   affiliation   for   additional   courses,   was   the

fulfillment of just three simple criteria namely (i) more than 50%

pass for the outgoing students at the time of application for

affiliation; (ii) most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”;

and  (iii)  three years average intake of more than 50% of the

sanctioned intake.

32.As we have seen earlier, the power to lay down norms and

standards and the power to affiliate to itself the Colleges, flow out

of clause (iii) and (iv) of Section 8. This power is exercisable by

University   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   the

Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. It is the very same Section

8 which confers power upon the University to make Statutes,

Ordinances and Regulations, under clause (xxvi).  

23

33.Section 22 speaks of different authorities of the University.

Under Section 22, as it was originally drafted, the University shall

have   a   Board   of   Governors,   an   Executive   Committee,   the

Academic   Committee,   the   Research   Council   and   such   other

bodies as may be designated by the Statutes, to be the authorities

of the University. The University Act 17 of 2015 was amended by

A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (Amendment) Act,

2018.  The Amendment Act, though notified in the Kerala Gazette

on 03.07.2018, came into effect from 08.12.2017. Through this

Amendment Act, the nomenclature of the ‘Academic Committee’

was   changed   to   ‘Academic   Council’   and   the   nomenclature   of

‘Executive   Committee’   was   changed   to   ‘Syndicate’.   Therefore,

wherever there was  a reference in the  Act, to the  ‘Executive

Committee’,   it   had   to   be   construed   as   a   reference   to   the

‘Syndicate’.

34.Section 30(1) vests upon the Syndicate, the executive

powers of the University, including the general superintendence

and control over the institutions of the University. Sub­section (2)

24

of Section 30 lists out the powers available to the Syndicate,

subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. The power

under Clause (iii) of Sub­section (2) of Section 30 is of relevance

and it reads as follows:­

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes,

the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:­

(i)………

(ii)………

(iii)  to   propose   norms   and   standards   for   affiliating

colleges  as   regular   colleges   or   autonomous   colleges   or

constituent colleges of the University.”

Thus,  the source of power  for the Syndicate to prescribe

norms and standards for affiliation, is Section 30(2). Section

30(2) begins with the words “subject to the provisions of the Act

and the Statutes”. So, if there is something in the Act or the

Statutes which regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate,

then the Syndicate may be bound by such prescription. But if

there is nothing in the Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at

all, then it cannot be said that the power itself is unavailable.

What is important to observe is that the power of the Syndicate

to propose norms and standards flows out of the Act and not

out   of   the   University   Statutes.  Therefore,   the   absence   of

25

Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did

not mean that the power under Section 30(2) could not have been

exercised. The High Court erred in thinking that in the absence of

the Statutes, recourse was available only to the Vice Chancellor

under Section 14(6), overlooking for a moment that the power

under   Section   30(2)(iii)   would   not   become   otiose   due   to   the

absence of the Statutes. 

35.Section 42 of the Act which speaks about the issue of

Statutes and the matters for which provisions may be made in

the Statutes, makes it clear that “the conditions and procedures

for affiliation of Colleges and for withdrawing the affiliation of

colleges”, is one of the matters that could be provided for in the

Statutes. This is under Clause (xi) of Section 42. Therefore, it is

clear   that   the   Statutes   can   provide   for   the   conditions   and

procedure   for   affiliation.   The   absence   of   the   Statutes   (till

07.08.2020) would only mean the absence of Statute­stipulated

conditions and procedure for affiliation, but not the absence of

the very power of the Syndicate flowing out of Section 30(2)(iii).

Therefore, it was not necessary for the Vice Chancellor to fall

26

back   upon   Section   14(6)   on   the   ground   that   there   were   no

Statutes at that time.

36.Even   assuming   for   a   moment   that   the   absence   of   the

Statutes   would   take   one   automatically   to   Section   14(6),   the

inference drawn therefrom by the High Court may not be correct.

Section 14(6) says that in the absence of a Statute, it is the Vice

Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is

required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations. It cannot be

interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in

the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have

the power. In any case, the language of Section 14(6) is such that

the   Vice   Chancellor  may   first   regulate  the   matter   by   issuing

directions and thereafter submit the same “as soon as may be”

for the approval of the Board of Governors or other authority or

body concerned. By virtue of Section 30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can

be taken to be the “other authority” referred to in Section 14(6). If

we do so, it can be seen that it was the Syndicate, chaired by the

Vice   Chancellor   which   took   the   impugned   decisions   in   its

meetings held  on 04.02.2020  and 24.06.2020 and  hence the

27

prescription   of   norms   by   the   Syndicate,   chaired   by   the   Vice

Chancellor cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act. 

37.In any case, once the Statutes were issued on 07.08.2020,

the   vacuum   sought   to   be   filled   up   by   Section   14(6)   also

disappeared.   Under   Section   43(1)   of   the   Act,   the   State

Government has the power to issue the first Statutes of the

University. Accordingly, the Government issued the first Statutes

on 07.08.2020. There is nothing in the Statutes that appears to

curtail   the   power   of   the   Syndicate   to   lay   down   norms   and

standards. Under Clause (xi) of Section 42, the Statutes may

provide for the conditions and the procedure for affiliation. But

the Statutes do not appear to lay down any conditions. Statute

No.93 relied upon by the University seems to have left it to the

Syndicate to prescribe the conditions. Statute No.93 reads as

follows:

“Statute 93 Clause (xlix)

To   grant   exemption   or   reduction   in   the   following

mattes   and   also   other   mattes   not   specified   here   below,

subject to the provisions of the University Act:

a)xxxxx

b)xxxxx

c)xxxxx

d)xxxxx

e)xxxxx

28

f)xxxxx

g) Matters relating to granting of affiliation for a course

of   study   or   any   subject   in   a   course   of   study   not

already affiliated to the University, conducted in any of

the colleges.”

38.When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions for

affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of matters

relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay down

norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by Section

30(2), is made free of any fetters.

39.Therefore, the norms prescribed by the Syndicate in its

meeting held on 24.06.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Vice

Chancellor could not have been taken exception to. After all, the

norms which the Colleges have objected to, merely seek to ensure

that at least 50% of the outgoing students had passed their

respective courses and that the Institution should have the most

recent academic audit overall score of “Good”, apart from having

an actual intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the

preceding three years on an average. We fail to understand how

colleges can demand affiliation for creating additional courses,

when the pass percentage of outgoing students is less than 50%

29

and the Colleges could not even have an average intake of more

than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years.

40.Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was in

error in holding on the first issue that the resolutions passed by

the Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of

affiliation for additional courses, are ultra vires the Act. 

41.Let us now take up the second issue revolving around the

role   of   the   appellant­University  vis­a­vis  AICTE.   A   little

elaboration may be necessary as this issue keeps recurring very

often.

42.The AICTE, was actually set up in 1945 as a National

Expert Body to advice the Central and State Governments for

ensuring the Coordinated Development of Technical Education in

accordance with approved standards. After the mushroom growth

of private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics and the growing

erosion of standards, the Council felt it necessary that it should

be   vested   with   statutory   powers   to   regulate   and   maintain

standards of Technical Education in the country. Therefore, a

National Working Group was set up in November, 1985. On the

30

basis of the recommendations made by the National Working

Group, the AICTE Act, 1987 was enacted. Section 23(1) of the

AICTE   Act   empowers   the   Council   to   make   regulations   not

inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules,

generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 10(1) of the

Act enjoins upon the Council, the duty to take all such steps as

may   be   necessary   for   ensuring   coordinated   and   integrated

development   of   Technical   and   Management   Education   and

maintenance of standards. Clause (i) of sub­section (1) of Section

10 empowers the Council to lay down norms and standards for

courses,   curricula,   physical   and   instrumental   facilities,   staff

pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and

examinations.   Clause(o)   empowers   the   Council   to   provide

guidelines for admission of students to Technical Institutions and

Universities   imparting   technical   education.   Clause(k)   of   Sub­

section (1) of Section 10 empowers the Council to grant approval

for starting new Technical Institutions and for introduction of

new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies

concerned.

31

43.It will be of interest to note that Sub­section (2) of Section

23, which enlists the matters that could be provided for in the

Regulations framed by the AICTE, does not include any of the

powers indicated in Section 10(1). Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub­section

(2) of Section 23 deal with the manner in which the meetings of

the Council are to be regulated, the procedure for conducting

business at the meetings of the Council, the terms and conditions

of   service   of   officers   and   employees   of   the   Council,   the

constitution and powers of the Board of Studies etc. But Sub­

section (2) of Section 23 makes it clear that the items listed

therein are without prejudice to the generality of the powers to

make Regulations under Sub­section (1), for carrying out the

purposes of the Act. This is why all Regulations are issued by

AICTE in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) read

with the relevant clauses of Sub­section (1) of Section 10.

44.The AICTE Act is to be traced to Entry 66 of List­I of the

Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

Technological   University   Act   issued   by   the   Kerala   State

Legislature can be traced to Entry 25 of List­III.

32

45.In R. Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore and Others

1

, the

Constitution Bench of this Court pointed out that the question

regarding the impact of Entry 66 of List­I on Entry­25 of List­III

must be determined by a reading of the Central Act and the State

Act   conjointly.   The   Court   pointed   out  that   a   State   Law

providing for such standards, having regard to Entry 66 of

List­I, would be struck down as unconstitutional only if the

same is found to be so heavy or devastating as to wipe out

or appreciably abridge the Central field and not otherwise .

The Court also pointed out that if a State law prescribes higher

percentage of marks for extra­curricular activities in the matter of

admissions   to   colleges,   it   cannot   be   said   that   it   would   be

encroaching on the field covered by Entry 66 of List­I.

46.The  decision of  the   Supreme  Court  in  R. Chitralekha

(supra) was followed in several cases including the one in State

of A.P. vs. K. Purushotham Reddy and others

2

. The decision in

K.  Purushotham   Reddy  (supra)   arose   under   very   peculiar

1 AIR 1964 SC 1823 

2 (2003) 9 SCC 564

33

circumstances. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted in the year

1986,   an  Act   known  as   Andhra   Pradesh  Commissionerate   of

Higher Education Act, 1986. The constitutional validity of the

said  Act  was   questioned   on  the   ground  of   lack  of   legislative

competence, in view of the University Grants Commission Act,

1956.   Though   a   Full   Bench   of   the   High   Court   rejected   the

challenge,   the   Supreme   Court   declared   the   Act   as

unconstitutional,   by   its   judgment   in  Osmania   University

Teachers’   Association  vs.  State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and

Another

3

. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted

the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988.

This Act was declared as unconstitutional by the High Court, on

the same premise on which the 1986 Act was declared by this

Court as unconstitutional. Therefore, the matter was carried to

this Court. A Two Member Bench of this Court doubted the

correctness of the decision in  Osmania University Teachers’

Association  (supra), and hence, the matter was referred to a

three­member   Bench.   The   three­member   Bench   rejected   the

3 (1987) 4 SCC 671

34

challenge   to   the   State   Act,   by   following   the   decision   in  R.

Chitralekha (supra) and pointed out that when a State Act is in

aid of the Parliamentary Act, the same would not entrench upon

the latter. 

47.The law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open to

the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by

AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced

norms. As regards the role of the Universities vis­

à­vis

 the AICTE,

this Court held in Bharathidasan University and Another  vs.

All India Council for Technical Education and Others

4

, that

AICTE is not a super power with a devastating role undermining

the   status,   authority   and   autonomous   functioning   of   the

Universities in areas and spheres assigned to them. This view was

followed in Association of Management of Private Colleges  vs.

All India Council for Technical Education and Others

5

. 

48.That   even   the   State   Government   can   prescribe   higher

standards than those prescribed by AICTE was recognized by a 3­

4   (2001) 8 SCC 676

5  (2013) 8 SCC 271

35

member Bench of this court in State of T.N. and Another vs.

S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others

6

.  This principle was later

applied   in   the   case   of   Universities   in  Visveswaraiah

Technological University and Another vs. Krishnendu Halder

and Others

7

 where this Court considered the previous decisions

and summarised the legal position emerging therefrom as follows:

(i) While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to

institutions of higher education, the State/University cannot

adversely   affect   the   standards   laid   down   by   the   Central

Body/AICTE.   The   term   “adversely   affect   the   standards”

refers   to   lowering   of   the   norms   laid   down   by   Central

Body/AICTE. Prescribing higher standards for admission by

laying down qualifications in addition to or higher than those

prescribed by AICTE, consistent with the object of promoting

higher standards and excellence in higher education, will not

be considered as adversely affecting the standards laid down

by the Central Body/AICTE.

(ii) The observation in para 41(vi) of Adhiyaman to the effect

that   where   seats   remain   unfilled,   the   state   authorities

cannot   deny   admission   to   any   student   satisfying   the

minimum standards laid down by AICTE, even though he is

not qualified according to its standards, is not good law.

(iii) The fact that there are unfilled seats in a particular year,

does not mean that in that year, the eligibility criteria fixed

by  the State/University would cease to apply or that the

minimum eligibility criteria suggested by AICTE alone would

apply. Unless and until the State or the University chooses

to   modify   the   eligibility   criteria   fixed   by   them,   they   will

continue to apply in spite of the fact that there are vacancies

or unfilled seats in any year. The main object of prescribing

6  (2004) 4 SCC 513

7  (2011) 4 SCC 606

36

eligibility criteria is not to ensure that all seats in colleges

are   filled,   but   to   ensure   that   excellence   in   standards   of

higher education is maintained.

(iv) The State/University (as also AICTE) should periodically

(at such intervals as they deem fit) review the prescription of

eligibility   criteria   for   admissions,   keeping   in   balance,   the

need to maintain excellence and high standard in higher

education  on  the  one  hand, and the need  to maintain a

healthy ratio between the total number of seats available in

the state and the number of students seeking admission, on

the other. If necessary, they may revise the eligibility criteria

so as to continue excellence in education and at the same

time being realistic about the attainable standards of marks

in the qualifying examinations.

49.Visveswaraiah  (supra)   principles   were   reiterated   in

Mahatma Gandhi University and Another  vs. Jikku Paul and

Others

8

. The legal position summarised in paragraph 14 of the

report in  Visveswaraiah  (supra) (extracted above) were quoted

with   approval   by   the   Constitution   Bench   in  Modern   Dental

College & Research Centre and Others  vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and Others

9

. In Modern Dental College (supra), issue

No. IV framed for consideration by the Constitution Bench (as

reflected in the opinion of the majority) was as to “whether the

legislation   in   question   was   beyond   the   legislative

8 (2011) 15 SCC 242

9   (2016) 7 SCC 353

37

competence   of   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh”.  While

answering this issue, the opinion of the majority was to the effect

(i) that the decision in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another  vs.

State of M.P. and Others

10

 did not exclude the role of the States

altogether   from   admissions;   and   (ii)   that   the   observations   in

Bharati Vidyapeeth (deemed university) and Others  vs. State

of Maharashtra and Another

11

 as though the entire gamut of

admissions was covered by Entry 66 of List­I, has to be overruled.

In the concurring and supplementing opinion rendered by R.

Banumathi,   J.,   in  Modern   Dental   College  (supra),   the   legal

position enunciated in Visveswaraiah (supra) were extracted and

followed.

50.But the High court placed reliance upon the decisions in (i)

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs. Commissioner & Secretary

to   Government   Higher   Education   Department,

Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Another

12

,  (ii)  Mata

10  (1999) 7 SCC 120

11  (2004) 11 SCC 755

12  (2000) 5 SCC 231

38

Gujri   Memorial   Medical   College  vs.  State   of   Bihar   and

Others

13

and   (iii)  Rungta   Engineering   College,   Bhilai   and

Another  vs  .Chattisgarh   Swami   Vivekanand   Technical

University and Another

14

, to hold in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the

impugned judgment that the University did not have the power to

incorporate any additional conditions for affiliation and that the

AICTE   Regulations   and   the   Approval   Process   Handbook

constitute a complete code having a superior force.

51.But the High Court ought to have noticed that all the above

3 decisions are distinguishable. In  Jaya Gokul Educational

Trust (supra), the question whether the State Government, as a

matter   of   policy,   can   decline   to   grant   approval   for   the

establishment   of   a   new   Engineering   College,   in   view   of   the

perception of the State Government that the opening of a new

college will not be in the interest of the students and employment,

was answered in favour of the Institution. 

13  (2009) 16 SCC 309

14  (2015) 11 SCC 291

39

52.Thereafter,   in  Bharathidasan   University  (supra),  the

Supreme Court noted  Jaya Gokul Educational Trust   (supra)

and   came   to   the   conclusion   that   a   careful   scanning   of   the

provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in

juxtaposition will show that the role of the AICTE  vis­

à­vis  

the

Universities   is   only   advisory,   recommendatory   and   a   guiding

factor. Therefore, on the issue on hand,  Jaya Gokul  is of no

assistance   to   the   first   respondent.  Mata   Gujri   Memorial

Medical   College  followed  Jaya   Gokul,   without   reference   to

Bharathidasan   University.   In   any   case,   as   on   date

Visveswaraiah,   Mahatma   Gandhi   University   and   Modern

Dental College  hold the field, but apparently, they were not

brought to the notice of the High Court.

53.In  Rungta  Engineering  College  (supra),   on   which  the

High Court placed heavy reliance, this Court relied upon the

decisions   in  State   of   T.N.   and   Another  vs.   Adhiyaman

Educational and Research Institute and Others

15

 and  Jaya

15  (1995) 4 SCC 104

40

Gokul.   In  Adhiyaman,  this   Court   held   that   in   the   case   of

institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University

Act   and   the   University   but   the   Central   Act   and   the   Council

created under it that will have jurisdiction. 

54.Rungta   Engineering   College  did   not   take   note   of

Bharathidasan   University,  B.V.   Bratheep,   Visveswaraiah

and Mahatma Gandhi University.  Therefore, it cannot be said

to reflect the correct position in law.

55.Quite unfortunately the AICTE has filed a counter affidavit

before this Court supporting the case of the first Respondent

College   and   branding   the   fixation   of   additional   norms   and

conditions by the University as unwarranted.  Such a stand on

the part of the AICTE has compelled us to take note of certain

developments that have taken place after 2012 on the AICTE

front.

56.After   the   advent   of   AICTE   Regulations,   2012,   the

applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE

only online, merely on the basis of the self­disclosure made by the

41

colleges in their online applications. If all infrastructural facilities

as   prescribed   by   AICTE   are   found   to   be   available   on   paper

(whether available at site or not), the AICTE grants extension of

approval.

57.The position ever since 2012 has been that all applications

for approval/extension of approval are processed by AICTE only

online.   The   AICTE   Regulations,   2020,   also   require   under

Regulation   5.6.a.   that   existing   institutions   should   submit

applications using their unique User ID. Regulation 6.3.a. states

that the applications submitted by the existing institutions will be

processed after confirming that the applicant had fulfilled all the

norms and standards through the procedure as prescribed in the

Approval Process Handbook. Chapter II of the Approval Process

Handbook   for   2020­21   makes   it   clear   that   the   extension   of

approval will be based on self­disclosure.   Paragraph 13 of the

counter   affidavit   of   the   AICTE   contains   an   extract   of   Clause

2.15.4(b) of APH 2020­21, which confirms that the assessment is

based on self­disclosure on AICTE web portal.

42

58.Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to conduct

inspections   and   take   penal   action   against   colleges   for   false

declarations, such penal action does not mean anything and does

not  serve any  purpose for the  students who get admitted to

colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and

not on site. The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how the

students   will   get   compensated,   when   penal   action   is   taken

against   colleges   which   host   false   information   online   in   their

applications to AICTE. Ultimately, it is the universities which are

obliged to issue degrees and whose reputation is inextricably

intertwined with the fate and performance of the students, that

may have to face the music and hence their role cannot  be

belittled. Today, even the universities are being ranked according

to the quality of standards maintained by them. The Ministry of

Human   Resources   Development   of   the   Government   of   India

launched an initiative in September 2015, known as National

Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), for ranking institutions

including universities in India. The ranking is based on certain

parameters such as:  (i)  Teaching, Learning and Resources;  (ii)

43

Research and Professional Practice;  (iii)  Graduation Outcomes;

(iv)  Outreach and Inclusivity; and (v) Peer Perception. No State

run university can afford to have a laid­back attitude today, when

their   own   performance   is   being   measured   by   international

standards. Therefore, the power of the universities to prescribe

enhanced norms and standards, cannot be doubted.

59.In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that

the view taken by the Kerala High Court in paragraphs 33 to 35

of the impugned judgment on issue no.2, is unsustainable. At the

cost of repetition, we point out that while universities cannot

dilute the standards prescribed by AICTE, they certainly have the

power to stipulate enhanced norms and standards.

60.   Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned

judgment of the High Court is set aside. The resolution passed by

the   Syndicate   on   24.06.2020   in   modification   of   the   earlier

resolution   dated   04.02.2020   is   upheld.   As   a   corollary,   the

consequential actions, if any, of the University as regards the first

respondent­College   are   also   upheld.   The   applications   for

44

impleadment/intervention are dismissed and the other pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.   There will be no

order as to costs.

………… ....................CJI.

(S. A. Bobde)

...…………....................J.

(A. S. Bopanna)

…..……….....................J.

V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi

December 10, 2020

45