1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.724 OF 2020

PRANEETH K AND ORS.             ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY GRANTS 

COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.   ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 739 OF 2020

YUVA SENA               ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY GRANTS 

COMMISSION AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 746 OF 2020

YASH DUBEY AND ANR.             ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

2

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 745 OF 2020

KRUSHNA GOVING WAGHMARE 

AND ORS.   ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY GRANT 

COMMISSION AND ORS.            ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10042 OF 2020

(Diary No. 15056 OF 2020 )

KAJAL MISHRA AND ORS.         ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 741 OF 2020

WEST BENGAL COLLEGE AND

UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS’ 

ASSOCIATIOIN (WBCUPA) AND ANR.     ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

3

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 794 OF 2020

SARTHAK MEHTA AND ORS.               ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY GRANTS 

COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.        ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 814 OF 2020

RITESH ANIL MAHAJAN AND ORS.        ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE DISASTER 

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 862 OF 2020

KALICHARAM GAJBHIYE AND ANR.        ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE DISASTER 

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.       ...RESPONDENT(S)

4

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 861 OF 2020

SOUVIK PAL                      ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL        ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This batch of cases consisting of writ petitions

(except one Special Leave Petition, i.e., SLP (C) D.

No.15056   of   2020)   filed   under   Article   32   of   the

Constitution of India can be divided into two broad

groups.   First group of writ petitions consists of

petitions filed by students, youth organisations and

the teachers associations challenging the guidelines

issued by University Grants Commission (hereinafter

referred to as “UGC”) dated 06.07.2020, O.M. dated

06.07.2020   issued   by   Ministry   of   Human   Resource

5

Development   and   letter   dated   06.07.2020   issued   by

Ministry of Home Affairs whereby all the Universities

and Colleges across the country had been directed to

conduct terminal semester/ final year examinations by

30.09.2020.     A   further   relief   has   been   sought

directing the respondents to declare the results of

the   students   of   the   final   year/terminal   semester

examinations of all universities/ institutions of the

country   on   the   basis   of   their   past

performance/internal   assessment   and   to   award

marksheets and degrees.   The second group of writ

petitions   are   the   writ   petitions   filed   by   the

students   challenging   the   decision   of   the   State

Disaster   Management   Authority   as   well   as   of   the

States   (State   of   Maharashtra   and   State   of   West

Bengal)   for   not   holding   final   term   examination.

Further   prayers   have   been   made   that   State   of

Maharashtra   as   well   as   State   of   West   Bengal   be

directed to comply with the UGC revised guidelines

dated   06.07.2020   and   O.M.   dated   06.07.2020   of

6

Ministry of Human Resource Development.  The special

leave petition has been filed against a common order

dated 14.07.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in

Writ Petition No. 3199 of 2020 and other connected

matters by which the High Court noted the schedule of

examination in the Open Book Examination (OBE) mode

by University of Delhi.  

2.In Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020, Praneeth K and

Others Vs. University Grants Commission and Others,  a

common   counter   affidavit,   additional   affidavit   and

affidavit in reply to the UGC has been filed.   The

State   of   Maharashtra   has   also   filed   affidavits   in

Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020.  All the parties

in Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020 are represented.

Other writ petitions and special leave petition are

tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020.  The

decision in Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020 shall

be sufficient to answer the issues raised in this

batch of cases.  The pleadings in Writ Petition (C)

7

No. 724 of 2020 need to be noted in some detail with

brief reference of prayers in other writ petitions

and special leave petition.    

Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020 ­ Praneeth K and

Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission and Ors.     

3.  This writ petition has been filed by 31 students

pursuing   undergraduate   or   postgraduate   terminal

semester/final year courses in different Universities

located in different States across the country.  The

petitioners   are   studying   in   different   Universities

located   in   States   of   Kerala,   Maharashtra,   Assam,

Gujarat,   Himachal   Pradesh,   Uttarakhand,   NCT   Delhi,

Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Haryana, Uttar

Pradesh, Bihar and Meghalaya.   Petitioners’ case is

that due to pandemic COVID­19, Government of India

announced the nationwide lockdown w.e.f. 24.03.2020

in   order   to   contain   the   spread   of   COVID­19.     The

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of

India issued various directions, guidelines and SOPs.

8

Various   educational   institutes   and   Universities

extended   their   dates   of   examination   for   various

courses postponing the same indefinitely. 

4.UGC constituted an Expert Committee to deliberate and

make recommendations regarding issues of examination

and   academic   calendar.     The   Expert   Committee

submitted its report on basis of which UGC issued

guidelines on 29.04.2020, in which guidelines it was

proposed   to   take   the   final   year   university

examination   by   31.07.2020.     Number   of   COVID   cases

being still rising, the above Expert Committee was

requested   by   UGC   to   revisit   the   guidelines.     The

Expert   Committee   submitted   its   report,   which   was

approved by UGC on 06.07.2020 and UGC revised the

guidelines   and   issued   academic   calendar   for   final

year examinations.  In view of COVID­19 pandemic, the

revised   guidelines   provided   that   Universities   are

required   to   complete   the   examinations   by   end   of

September,   2020   in   offline   (pen   and

9

paper)/online/blended   (offline   +   online)   following

the prescribed protocol/guidelines relating to COVID­

19.   On 06.07.2020, the Ministry of Human Resource

Development   formulated   SOP   for   conduct   of   the

examination   duly   vetted   by   Ministry   of   Health   and

Family Welfare.  On 06.07.2020, the Ministry of Home

Affairs by a letter permitted the Ministry of Human

Resource  Development  to conduct the examination by

Universities and institutions.  

5.The petitioners’ case is that the decision of the

UGC,   Ministry   of   Human   Resource   Development   and

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   to   conduct   the   final

term/final   examinations   of   Universities   and

institutions   throughout   the   country   amid   COVID­19

pandemic   is   extremely   arbitrary,   whimsical   and

detrimental to the health and safety of the students

as well as violative of fundamental rights of lakhs

of students enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the

10

Constitution   of   India   including   those   of   the   writ

petitioners. 

6.In   pursuance   of   the   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020,

various   institutions   and   colleges   have   issued

notifications notifying the final year examination.

Many   universities   and   educational   institutions   of

India   and   abroad   have   issued   their   admission

notification for the year 2020­2021 wherein the last

date of online registration was 31.07.2020 and unless

a candidate possess the degree before that he cannot

apply for admission.  Representation dated 09.07.2020

has been submitted to the Minister of Human Resource

Development   to   find   an   alternate   way   to   save   the

careers   of   the   students.     The   petitioners   have

further claimed that various other examination Boards

like CBSE, ICSE, ISC have cancelled their Xth/XIIth

Board examination due to COVID­19 pandemic and has

declared   the   result   on   the   basis   of   past

performance/internal assessment. On one hand, the UGC

11

has   exempted   the   students   of   intermediate

years/semester from appearing in the examinations due

to COVID­19 outbreak and on the other hand has forced

the   final   year   students   to   appear   in   the

examinations, which is discriminatory and arbitrary.

The   petitioners   in   the   writ   petition   have   made

following specific prayers:­

a)Issue   urgent   Writ   In   the   nature   of

mandamus   or   any   Other   appropriate

Writ, Order or Direction to quash and

set   aside   the   Letter   bearing   D.O.

No.F.1­1/2020 (Secy) dated 06.07.2020

issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1   UGC

(Annexure   P­3)   AND   the   Office

Memorandum   bearing   F.No.   16­16/2020­

U1A   dated   06.07.2020,   issued   by   the

respondent No. 3 MHRD (Annexure P­4)

AND   Notification   bearing

NW/RK/PK/AD/DD   dated   06.07.2020,

issued   by   the   Press   Information

Bureau, Government of India (Annexure

P­5) whereby all the Universities and

Colleges   across   India   have   been

directed   to   conduct   final   Term/final

year   examinations   by   30.09.2020;

and/or

b) Accordingly, issue urgent Writ In the

nature   of   mandamus   or   any   other

appropriate   Writ,   Order   or   Direction

to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to

not conduct the final Term/ final Year

12

examinations   of   all   Universities/

institutions across India; and/or 

c) Issue   urgent   Writ   in   the   nature   of

mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate

Writ,   Order   or   Direction   to   the

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to declare

results of the Petitioners and other

similarly   situated   students   of   the

final Term/ final Year examinations of

all Universities/ Institutions across

India,   on   the   basis   of   their   past

performance/   internal   assessment   and

to   award    marksheets   and  degrees   to

all successful students on or before

31.07.2020;   and/or

d) Issue   urgent   Writ   in   the   nature   of

mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate

Writ,   Order   or   Direction   to   the

Respondent   Nos.1,   2   and   3   to   also

adopt   CBSE   mechanism   end   provide

subsequently another chance to Improve

marks to those willing students, who

may   be   unsatisfied   with   their   score

based upon their past performance or

Internal assessment; and/or 

e) Pass any other order or direction as

this   Hon’ble   Court   may   deem   it   and

proper In the facts and circumstances

of   the   case   and   in   the   interest   of

justice.”

7.By our order dated 27.07.2020, we had directed the

petitioners   to   serve   a   copy   to   learned   Solicitor

13

General   as   well   as   learned   counsel   for   the   UGC.

Three   days’   time   was   given   to   file   the   counter

affidavit and rejoinder was directed to be filed on

next date.  In pursuance of order dated 27.07.2020, a

common  counter  affidavit  dated  30.07.2020  has  been

filed   by   UGC.     UGC   has   also   filed   additional

affidavits.   An affidavit dated 05.08.2020 was also

filed by the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition

(C) No. 724 of 2020, reply of which was filed by the

UGC vide its affidavit dated 17.08.2020.   Pleadings

were complete in Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020,

consideration of which writ petition shall answer all

issues raised in this batch of cases. 

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 739 of 2020 – 

Yuva Sena Vs. University Grants Commission and Ors. 

8.This   writ   petition   has   been   filed   as   a   public

interest litigation by the petitioner, which is youth

wing   of   Shiv   Sena,   registered   and   recognized

political party in India.  After issuance of revised

14

guidelines  dated  06.07.2020 by  UGC, the petitioner

claims to have addressed a letter dated 07.07.2020 to

Minister   of   Human   Resource   Development   praying   to

reconsider   the   decision   of   compulsorily   conducting

final year examinations.   Petitioner’s case is that

UGC had issued earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020,

which were advisory in nature and each University was

to   chart   out   its   own   plan   of   action   taking   into

consideration   the   issues   pertaining   to   COVID­19

pandemic.     Petitioner’s   case   is   that   revised

guidelines have been passed in ignorance of rising

cases of COVID­19 and have crated great fear in the

minds of students around the country especially in

the States of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu

and Delhi.   The impugned guidelines have not taken

into account the consequent risk of life to which the

students writing examinations would be exposed to.  

9.Petitioner’s case further is that various States are

suffering   gravely   from   pandemic   of   COVID­19   and

15

respective State Governments have imposed/implemented

various   levels   of   lockdown   under   the   Disaster

Management Act, 2005.   Petitioner pleads that as a

result   of   the   lockdown,   Universities,   schools,

educational institutions were forced to shut down and

to   postpone   the   terminal   semester/final   year

examinations.    Petitioner  pleaded  that  pursuant to

the UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020, the Ministry of

Higher and Technical Education, State of Maharashtra

had set up a State level Committee in view of the

grave situation of pandemic COVID­19, which Committee

submitted a report on 06.05.2020 and recommended that

the   final   year   exams   may   be   conducted   between

01.07.2020   to   31.07.2020,   the   said   recommendations

were  objected  by  petitioner and representation  was

made   to   cancel   the   examinations.     Petitioner   also

claims   to   have   made   a   representation   to   the

Government of Maharashtra requesting for not to hold

any   examinations.     On   19.06.2020,   the   State   of

Maharashtra   vide   a   Government   Resolution   dated

16

19.06.2020 took a resolution for cancellation of the

terminal   semester/final   year   examinations

considering   the   safety   of   health   and   life   of   the

students   and   for   the   allotment   of   grades   and

aggregate marks to students based on their previous

semester and internal marks.  

10. Petitioner’s case is that cases of COVID­19 are

increasing day by day in the State of Maharashtra and

many college buildings in the State of Maharashtra

have been requisitioned by the State Government / its

bodies   like   Municipal   Corporation   to   be   converted

into quarantine centres and for other public purpose

in view of present pandemic COVID­19, hence it is

impractical   to   hold   examinations.     In   the   writ

petition, petitioner has also given certain details

with regard to different States pertaining to number

of COVID­19 cases like States of Tamil Nadu, NCT of

Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana,

Andhra   Pradesh,   West   Bengal   and   others,   the

17

decisions taken by different States of not conducting

final examinations.  Petitioner also referred to and

relied on judgment of this Court in  Writ Petition (C)

No. 566 of 2020 – Amit Bathla & Ors. Vs. Central

Board of Secondary Education & Anr , where this Court

noticed the notifications issued by CBSE cancelling

the   examinations   for   classes   Xth/XIIth,   which   was

scheduled from 01.07.2020 to 15.07.2020.  petitioner

in the writ petition has also prayed for a writ of

Certiorari   setting   aside   the   impugned   revised

guidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued by UGC and O.M.

dated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of Human Resource

Development.     It   has   also   prayed   to   clarify   and

declare that as per UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020,

each university may chart out its own plan of action

with   respect   to   terminal   semester/final   year

examinations   taking   into   consideration   the   issues

pertaining to the COVID­19 pandemic.

18

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2020 – 

Yash Dubey and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

11. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner

No.1, a final year law student and petitioner No.2,

an  association  of  lawyers  registered  under  Society

Registration Act, 1860 namely, Youth Bar Association

of India.  The petitioners plead that cause of action

for   filing   of   the   writ   petition   has   arisen   on

06.07.2020   when   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   issued

notification   dated   06.07.2020   and   the   UGC   issued

revised   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020.     The

petitioners’   case   is   that   in   view   of   increasing

number   of   COVID­19   cases,   many   States   like   Madhya

Pradesh,   Rajasthan,   Punjab   and   Maharashtra   have

announced cancellation of examination of final year

students   and   for   promotion   of   the   final   year

students.   The petitioners further pleaded that on

11.07.2020, Tamil Nadu Government wrote a letter to

HRD   Minister   informing   that   they   are   not   in   a

position   to   conduct   college   examinations   for   the

19

final year students.   Another letter dated 11.07.2020

by Punjab Higher Education Minister written to HRD

Minister   is   referred   where   all   decisions   dated

06.07.2020   was   asked   to   be   reviewed,   decision   of

Government of Delhi dated 11.07.2020 to cancel all

ongoing   examination   have   also   been   referred   to.

Petitioners   have   prayed   for   setting   aside   the

notification dated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of

Home   Affairs   and   revised   UGC   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020.   The writ petitioners have also prayed

for certain other payers to provide for alternative

mode of assessment of the final year students in wake

of COVID­19 outbreak; to call upon Universities to

submit   a   set   of   parameters   for   evaluation   of   the

students on the basis of students past performance

and   accordingly   award   provisional   degrees   to   the

students and to promote the students on the basis of

the performance in the previous semesters by taking

an aggregate score for all the semesters.     

20

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 741 of 2020 – 

West   Bengal   College   and   University   Professors’

Association(WPCUPA) and Anr.Vs. Union of India & Ors.

12. This writ petition has been filed by the West

Bengal College & University Professors’ Association

(WBCUPA)   through   its   President.   The   petitioners

pleaded   that   on   27.06.2020   in   the   State   of   West

Bengal, all Vice Chancellors and Registrars of the

Universities   held   a   meeting   with   the   Minister   and

arrived   at   a   consensus   for   alternate   method   of

marking of final semester examination in the State

and decided to declare the result by 31.07.2020. A

memorandum   dated   27.06.2020   was   issued   by   the

Government   of   West   Bengal,   Department   of   Higher

Education to the above effect.   Petitioners case is

that   revised   UGC   guidelines   is   in   abject

contravention of students’ welfare since by the time

these   examinations   through   special   chance   will   be

conducted most of the Universities have closed their

admission application for postgraduate courses.  With

21

the continuous spike in COVID­19 cases in the entire

country including the State of West Bengal, situation

will   not   at   all   be   conducive   to   conduct   offline

examination   by   30.09.2020.     The   petitioner   also

refers to letter dated 11.07.2020 written by Chief

Minister   of   West   Bengal   to   Hon’ble   Prime   Minister

requesting to get the matter re­examined and restore

the   earlier   advisory   of   UGC   dated   29.04.2020.

Petitioners   have   also   referred   to   various

representations   made   by   various   Universities   from

State   of   West   Bengal   to   UGC   to   reconsider   its

decision to hold examinations.   Petitioners in writ

petition   has   prayed   for   Mandamus   commanding   the

respondent  No.1 to  forthwith  rescind  and/or cancel

and/or withdraw the letter dated 06.07.2020.       

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2020 – 

Krushna Govind Waghmare and Ors. Vs. University Grant

Commission and Ors.

13. This   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   five

petitioners,   who   are   final   year   law   students   of

22

various   educational   institutions   affiliated   to

Universities   of   Maharashtra.   Petitioners’   case   is

that UGC before issuing the revised guidelines have

not   considered   the   deadly   COVID­19   pandemic.

Petitioners have also referred to cancellation of Xth

and XIIth examinations by CBSE and ICSE.  Petitioners

have   prayed   for   quashing   the   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 and has further prayed that this Court may

be pleased to grant the benefit of decision dated

19.06.2020 (State of Maharashtra) to the students of

professional courses and necessary directions to the

respondent State may also be issued.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 794 of 2020 – 

Sarthak   Mehta   and   Ors.   Vs.   University   Grants

Commission (UGC) and Ors.

14. This   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   three

petitioners.   Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are advocates

and   petitioner   No.   3   is   a   final   year   law   student

23

studying in Pune.  Petitioners’ case is that earlier

UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020 left the decision to

take or not to take the examinations of the students

with the Universities keeping in view the spread of

COVID­19 whereas impugned guidelines dated 06.07.2020

have   made   it   compulsory   for   the   Universities   to

conduct   final   year   examinations   by   the   end   of

September, 2020 irrespective of the spread of COVID­

19 in different regions/States.  Petitioners’ case is

that   impugned   guidelines   is   ultra   vires   to   the

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.  Petitioners

have also prayed for quashing the guidelines dated

06.07.2020 and for quashing the O.M. dated 06.07.2020

of Ministry of Human Resource Development and letter

dated 06.07.2020 and it has been further prayed that

result   of   students   be   declared   on   the   basis   of

previous   semester/year   performance/internal

evaluation.     

24

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 814 of 2020 – 

Ritesh   Anil   Mahajan   and   Ors.   Vs.   The   Maharashtra

State Disaster Management Authority and Ors.

15. This petition has been filed by four petitioners

out of which three are students and fourth petitioner

is member of Senate of University at Jalgaon elected

from the graduate’s constituency.  The State Disaster

Management Authority of the State of Maharashtra has

been   impleaded   as   respondent   No.1,   State   of

Maharashtra as respondent No.2 and UGC as respondent

No.3.   The petitioners plead that the Ministry of

Higher   and   Technical   Education   of   the   State   of

Maharashtra set up a State­level Committee headed by

the   Vice­Chancellor,   Mumbai   University   in   view   of

grave situation created by COVID­19 pandemic.   The

Committee   submitted   its   report   on   06.05.2020

recommending that the final year exams be conducted

between 01.07.2020 to 31.07.2020.   The statement of

Chief Minister dated 31.05.2020 has been referred to

25

where   he   declared   that   no   examinations   will   be

conducted for final year students and all students

will be given marks by averaging the marks obtained

in   the   previous   semester   examinations.   The   State

Disaster  Management Authority  in  its  meeting  dated

18.06.2020   took   various   decisions   resolving   that

taking into consideration the state of COVID­19 in

the State of Maharashtra, examination of final year

professional courses cannot be  arranged.  With regard

to non­professional courses, decision was also taken

for declaring their result as per decision taken in

the   meeting.     The   State   of   Maharashtra   issued   a

resolution   dated   19.06.2020   regarding   non­

professional   and   professional   courses,   the

methodology   for   declaring   the   result.     The

petitioners   are   challenging   the   decision   taken   by

State Disaster Management Authority dated 18.06.2020

as well as the resolution of the State of Maharashtra

dated 19.06.2020 and have prayed for setting aside

the aforesaid two decisions.          

26

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 861 of 2020 – 

Souvik Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal

16. This   petition   has   been   filed   by   a   final   year

B.Sc.   student   studying   in   a   College   of   State

University   of   West   Bengal.     The   petitioner   is

challenging the decision dated 27.06.2020 issued by

State   Government   of   West   Bengal   regarding   the

undergraduate   and   postgraduate   examinations,   2020.

The   State   of   West   Bengal   vide   its   decision   dated

27.06.2020 issued an advisory to the effect that for

the   evaluation   of   students   in   terminal   semester

/final   year   of   the   General   Degree   courses   at

undergraduate/postgraduate level, 80% weightage shall

be given to the best aggregate percentage obtained by

the   candidate   in   any   of   the   previous

semesters’/years’   results   and   20%   to   internal

assessment   during   the   current   semester/year   as

adopted by the university.   The petitioner in the

writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated

27.06.2020 and also prayed for a direction to the

27

State of West Bengal and State Universities to comply

with the UGC’s revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020,

O.M. of Ministry of HRD dated 06.07.2020 and UGC’s

letter dated 08.07.2020.         

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 862 of 2020 – 

Kalicharam   Gajbhiye   and   Anr.   Vs.   The   Maharashtra

State Disaster Management Authority and Ors.

17. This   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   two

students, who are studying in a University in the

State of Maharashtra. Petitioners have challenged the

decision  dated  18.06.2020  of  the  Maharashtra  State

Disaster Management Authority as well as the decision

of the Government of Maharashtra dated 19.06.2020 and

subsequent   decision   dated   13.07.2020   of   the

Maharashtra State Disaster Management Authority and

further prayer was made that State of Maharashtra and

State   Universities   therein   be   requested   to   comply

with the UGC’s revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020,

28

O.M.   of   HRD   Ministry   dated   06.07.2020   and   UGC’s

letter dated 08.07.2020.

SLP(C)No.10042(Diary No. 15056) of 2020 – 

Kajal Mishra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 

18. This special leave petition has been filed by six

petitioners challenging the judgment and common order

dated 14.07.2020of the Division Bench of High Court

of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3199 of 2020 –

Prateek Sharma and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

with other connected writ petitions.  The petitioners

were not party in the writ petition before the High

Court. The High Court in its order dated 14.07.2020

noticed that entire scheme of examination has to be

worked out afresh by the Delhi University and dates

for conducting examinations of various undergraduate

courses   to   be   finalized.     The   Delhi   High   Court

directed the University to issue a notification at

the   earliest   placing   on   the   record   the   revised

schedule   of   the   examination.     The   writ   petition

29

before the Delhi High Court is still pending and in

pursuance of order dated 14.07.2020 the examinations

in   Open   Book   Examination   (OBE)   mode   had   already

commenced.   Petitioners’ case is that in batch of

writ petitions filed in the Delhi High Court, the

conduct   of   examination   by   online   mode   was   also

challenged.   The   petitioners   plead   that   other

Universities are evaluating their final year students

through internal assessment and the students of Delhi

University shall be deprived of the equal opportunity

in respect of admission and post graduate employment

opportunities etc. 

19. In the writ petitions although no formal notice

was issued but, in all writ petitions the respondents

have   appeared   through   counsel(except   W.P.No.739   of

2020). In Writ Petition No.739 of 2020 all the States

and Union Territories were impleaded as respondents

in   addition   to   University   Grants   Commission   as

respondent   No.1,   Ministry   of   Human   Resource

30

Development,   respondent   No.2,   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs,  respondent No.3.  The  State of  Maharashtra

and NCT of Delhi appeared through their counsel and

filed   affidavits.   The   State   of   Orissa   has   also

appeared through its Advocate General. We have not

issued notice to all the States who were impleaded in

Writ   Petition   No.739   of   2020.   The   State   of

Maharashtra, State of West Bengal, NCT of Delhi and

State of Orissa have sufficiently presented the stand

of   the   States   and   Union   Territories.   The   above

States/UTs   have   communicated   the   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs, Government of India that they are unable to

hold   the   examination   due   to   spread   of   COVID­19.

Before us  the cause of States, power of States and

States’   Disaster   Management   Authority   have   been

sufficiently represented. We are, thus, of the view

that   for   deciding   this   batch   of   cases   it   is   not

necessary to issue notice to all the States and Union

Territories   and   the   issues   raised   can   be   decided

after   hearing   the   respondents,   Ministry   of   Human

31

Resource   Development,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs,

Government of India, State of Maharashtra, State of

West Bengal, NCT of Delhi and State of Orissa. We,

thus, proceed to consider the submissions raised to

decide the matter on merits.  

20. As   indicated   above   in   Writ   Petition   No.724   of

2020   pleadings   are   complete   and   in   Writ   Petition

No.739 of 2020 convenience compilation in two volumes

has   been   filed   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioners.   It   shall   be   sufficient   to   refer   the

pleadings   in   Writ   Petition   No.724   of   2020   and

convenience compilations for deciding all the issues

raised before us.

21. For   the   writ   petitioners,   we   have   heard   Dr.

Abhishek  Manu  Singhvi,  Senior  Advocate, Shri  Shyam

Divan,  Senior  Advocate, Shri  Jaideep  Gupta, Senior

Advocate,  Shri  Vinay  Navare,  Senior Advocate,  Shri

32

Kishore Lambat, Shri Alakh Alok Srivastava and other

learned counsel.

22. We   have   heard   Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned

solicitor General for University Grants Commission.

We   have   heard   Shri   Arvind   Datar,   learned   senior

counsel   for   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   Shri   K.V.

Vishwanathan,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the

Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi,   Shri   Ashok   Parija,

Advocate­General,   for   the   State   of   Odisha,   Shri

Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General for the State

of West Bengal. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior

counsel   has   appeared   for   the   petitioner   in

SLP(C)Diary No.15056 of 2020. 

23. Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi   appearing   for   the

petitioner   in   Writ   Petitioner   in   W.P.(C)No.746   of

2020   submits   that   revised   UGC   Guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 are in complete disagreement and have been

issued   in   complete   disregard   with   the   earlier

33

guidelines   dated   29.04.2020.   The   guidelines   dated

29.04.2020   were   advisory   in   nature   and   provided

flexibility   to   the   Universities   to   implement   the

guidelines   in   the   best   interest   of   students.   The

guidelines   provided   that   in   case   the   pandemic

situation does not normalise the grading can be on

the basis of internal evaluation and past performance

of the student. Various State Governments including

State of Maharashtra, State of West Bengal, NCT of

Delhi and other States have expressed their inability

to organise the examination in the wake of increase

in COVID cases in the respective States. The deadline

of  30.09.2020  is  unrealistic  and  unattainable.  The

most of the Colleges/Universities/ Institutions have

been   converted   into   COVID   Health   Care   Centres.

Therefore, conducting of exams through offline mode

will entail a huge risk of transmission of virus, it

will be absolutely unjust to neglect the problems of

adopting uniform online mode of exams and also the

infrastructural disparities.   The office memorandum

34

issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development

dated   06.07.2020   is   itself   flawed   and   in   complete

disregard to the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines

dated 29.07.2020, which provide that in areas outside

the   Containment   Zones,   all   activities   will   be

permitted, except the Schools, Colleges, Educational

and   Coaching   Institutions   will   remain   closed   till

31.08.2020.   Section   72   of   the   Disaster   Management

Act, 2005 provides that decisions taken and orders

issued thereunder will have overriding effect. If a

decision is taken by the appropriate authority under

Act, 2005 regarding non­holding of examination, the

same   will   operate   and   hold   the   field   despite   the

provisions of the UGC Act. Section 12 of the UGC Act

mandates   that   guidelines   need   to   be   framed   in

consultation with the Universities. All Universities

were   not   consulted   before   issuing   the   impugned

guidelines. 

35

24. Dr. Singhvi has also referred to and relied on

the   decision   taken   on   13.07.2020   by   the   State

Disaster   Management   Authority   of   the   State   of

Maharashtra where decision was taken not to conduct

the   examination   in   the   current   circumstances.   Dr.

Singhvi submits that right to life and health is the

right   guaranteed   under   Article   21   of   the

Constitution. Conducting of the examination involves

huge amount of travel, huge use of public transport

which   are   not   possible   in   the   present   state   of

affairs in the various States including the State of

Maharashtra.   The   present   pandemic   is   a   special

situation   which   is   state   neutral.     The   University

Grants   Commission   Act   and   the   guidelines   framed

thereunder shall not have overriding effect on the

action under the Act, 2005. The Disaster Management

Act being a latter and special Act shall operate. He

further submits that the guidelines dated 06.07.2020

are manifestly arbitrary and liable to be set aside

on this ground alone. 

36

25.       Shri   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior   counsel,

appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.739

of   2020   submits   that   to   elevate   human   life,

fundamental norms have been engrafted in the regime

of Disaster Management Act. There are decentralized

units which may apply structured standard. He submits

that students, teachers and their respective families

are all homogeneous groups, they cannot be treated

differently   for   the   purpose   of   conducting   final

year/terminal semester exams by the UGC. Shri Divan,

learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   order   dated   15.04.2020

contends   that   prohibited   activities   included   “all

educational,   training,   coaching   institutions   etc.

shall   remain   closed”.   He   submits   that   the   said

prohibition is still continued and is operating till

31.08.2020 which does not permit holding of any exam.

Referring to the earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020,

Shri Divan submits that the guidelines were advisory

37

in nature and there was flexibility at local level in

the guidelines whereas the revised guidelines dated

06.07.2020   makes   it   compulsory   to   complete

examination   before   30.09.2020.   Revised   guidelines

disregard the health factor. There is no statement in

the revised guidelines  that COVID­19  situation  has

improved. 

26. Reverting to the Disaster Management Act, Shri

Divan submits that disaster is still continuing, the

State authorities under Disaster Management Act are

equally   empowered   to   take   measures.   Shri   Divan

further   submits   that   letter   issued   by   Ministry   of

Home Affairs permitting holding of examination cannot

supersede the statutory provisions. There are issues

of lack of appropriate infrastructure for conducting

online examination, the impugned guidelines violate

the   right   of   students   and   their   families.   The

guidelines   are   impractical   and   unclear.   The   order

issued   under   the   Disaster   Management   Act   shall

override the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020. The

38

revised   guidelines   are   manifestly   arbitrary,

inappropriate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of

the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner is an

organisation  which  works  towards  the  betterment of

educational facilities for the students of India. The

petitioner has written to Ministry of Human Resource

Development on 07.07.2020 praying to reconsider the

revised guidelines issued by the Ministry. 

27. Shri   Arvind   Datar,   learned   senior   counsel

appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submits that

UGC   has   no   legislative   competence   with   regard   to

conduct of examination. It is submitted that revised

guidelines have been issued under University Grants

Commission Act, 1956 which is referable to Entry 66

of   List   I   of   the   Seventh   Schedule   of   the

Constitution, which is confined to “co­ordination and

determination   of   standards”.   Shri   Datar   placed

reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of this

Court in  Modern Dental College and Research Centre

39

and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others,

(2016) 7 SCC 353. Shri Datar submits that UGC can lay

down only the qualification. Shri Datar submits that

not holding final examination and awarding Degree on

the basis of earlier semester’s performance is not

diluting the standards of education in any manner.

The students have completed five semesters (in the

State of Maharashtra) by March, 2020 and for final

semester internal assessment is also over, hence, the

students could have been promoted on the basis of

earlier assessments and there is nothing arbitrary in

giving Degree to the students on the basis of earlier

results. The directions of UGC to hold examination by

30.09.2020   is   completely   beyond   the   power   of   UGC.

Revised guidelines do not take into consideration the

different   situations   of   different   States.   In   the

State of Maharashtra situation is grave in view of

phenomenal   increase   in   the   COVID­19   cases.   The

University Grants Commission cannot fix the date for

holding examination. In the city of Pune itself which

40

is the hub of the education more than half of the

students have left for their home and hostels have

been   vacated.     There   are   about   7.35   lacs   non­

professional and 2.84 lacs are professional students,

public   transport   being   not   in   operation   it   is

difficult   for   the   students   to   reach   at   the

examination centres. Revised guidelines issued by the

UGC are violative of Article 14 because they apply

throughout the India and give one fix date, i.e.,

30.09.2020 irrespective of the conditions prevailing

in the State.

28. Shri Datar further submits that guidelines are

violative   of   Section   12   of   the   University   Grants

Commission   Act,   1956.   Section   12   requires

consultation   with   various   Universities   and   other

bodies.   Other   bodies   shall   include   State   Disaster

Management Authority. There has been no consultation

as per Section 12.  The State of Maharashtra was not

consulted before issuing the revised guidelines, the

41

guidelines are, thus, not in accordance with Section

12. Shri Datar submits that provisions of Disaster

Management Act will have overriding effect. He placed

reliance on Section 72 of the Act, 2005. Section 72

shall override not only the provisions of Maharashtra

University Act but also University Grants Commission

Act,   1956   and   also   the   decision   taken   and   orders

issued under Act, 1956. In the circumstances decision

taken by the State Disaster Management Authority in

the State of Maharashtra in not holding examination

shall   operate   and   hold   the   field   despite   the

provisions   of   UGC   Act   and   the   revised   guidelines.

Shri Datar has also referred to Section 18 and 24 of

Act, 2005 and submits that earlier Guidelines dated

29.04.2020 were advisery in nature. Shri Datar has

also   referred   to   UGC   (Minimum   Standards   of

Instruction for the Grant of the First Degree through

Formal Education) Regulations, 2003. The proposal of

Maharashtra Government to grant Degree on the basis

of first five semesters and internal assessment is in

42

accordance   with   Regulations,   2003.   Shri   Datar   has

referred to and relied on the Government Resolution

dated   19.06.2020   as   well   as   the   decision   dated

18.06.2020 of State Disaster Management Authority.

29.  Shri Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General for

the State of Odisha adopts the submission of Shri

Arvind Datar. He submits that it is not possible to

hold the final examination by 30.09.2020. Shri Parija

submits that there are several reasons which make it

impossible   to   take   physical   examination   in   the

present   scenario.   The   public   transport   is   not

functioning,   Schools   and   Colleges   are   closed   from

25.03.2020   and   students   have   gone   back   to   their

native places. Several Colleges are presently being

used  by the District  Administrations  as Quarantine

Centres, COVID Care Home, COVID Care Centre, COVID

Care Hospital, etc. COVID­19 infection is spreading

rapidly in the State of Odisha. It is not feasible to

conduct   online   examination   also   since   most   of   the

43

students belong to the lower and medium income group

and do not have desktop or laptop or decent smart

phone   at   home.   The   Minister,   Ministry   of   Higher

Education,   Government   of   Odisha   has   issued

instructions for adopting alternative procedure for

undergraduate  or  post­graduate  final  year  or  final

semester   students   which   is   in   consonance   with   UGC

guidelines   dated   29.04.2020.   To   await   indefinitely

for   conducting   of   examination   shall   delay   the

academic calendar. 

30. Shri   Jaideep   Gupta,   learned   senior   counsel

appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.741

of 2020 submits that on 27.06.2020 an advisory was

issued   by   the   State   of   Bengal   to   the   effect   that

students   in   terminal   semester/final   year   of   the

General   Degree   courses   at   under­Graduate/post­

Graduate level, 80% weightage should be considered on

the basis of the best aggregate percentage obtained

by   the   candidates   in   any   of   the   previous

44

semesters’/years’   results   and   20%   on   internal

assessment   during   the   current   semester/year.   The

result of final year/semester would be declared by

31.07.2020.

31. Shri   Gupta   submits   that   UGC   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 is not a statutory document but it is an

executive   instruction.   He   submits   that   it   is

unreasonable   to   direct   the   State   to   hold   the

examination   by   30.09.2020.   He   submits   that   in   the

State of West Bengal most of the Universities are not

the Campus University but a large number of Colleges

are affiliated and local trains and metros are not

working. Several districts are also affected by Super

Cyclone   Amphan.   He   submitted   that   no   physical

examination is possible in the State of West Bengal.

There   is   lack   of   digital   infrastructure.   The

guidelines are violative of Section 12 of Act, 1956

since relevant fact is not taken into consideration.

45

Section 12 of the UGC Act requires consultation which

means effective consultation.

32. Shri Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General, has

appeared for the State of West Bengal. Shri Dutta

submits that UGC has not taken into consideration the

pandemic. He submits that public health has to be

taken   into   consideration.   He   has   also   referred   to

Article 39(e),41, 45, 46 and 47 of the Constitution

of India. He submits that every State has peculiar

problems   and   UGC   could   not   have   taken   a   decision

without consulting the States. 

33. Shri   K.V.   Vishwanathan,   learned   senior   counsel

for NCT of Delhi submits that on 11.07.2020, Deputy

Chief   Minister   wrote   that   because   of   pandemic,

examination cannot be held. He submits that online

infrastructure   was   also   not   sufficient.   Shri

Vishwanathan submits that Entry 66 of List I of 7

th

Schedule has no role to play. The students have no

46

access to the books, online has its own shortcomings.

The guidelines  dated  29.04.2020 were  only  advisory

and now guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have been made

compulsory.   He   submits   that   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 has no statutory force. Shri Vishwanathan

submits that there is no rational distinction between

pre­final or final examination and it is easier to

evolve   mechanism   for   final   examination.   Shri

Vishwanathan submits that this Court may consider for

appointing   an   independent   commission   for   exploring

the solution. 

34. Shri Alakh Alok Srivastava, counsel appearing for

the   petitioner   submits   that   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 have been issued in violation of Section

12. He submits that words “other bodies” occurring in

Section 12 means health experts also. He submits that

there was no  pan­India consultation before issuing

guidelines. He  further  submits  that the guidelines

issued under Section 12 are only advisory. Referring

47

to Section 14 of UGC Act, he submits that UGC has

right only to stop the grant. He submits that Section

22 right of conferring or granting degrees shall be

exercised only by a University, who is authorised to

confer the Degrees.

35. Referring to Regulation 6.3 of Regulation 6 of

2003 Regulations, Shri Srivastava submits that nature

of   final   examination,   whether   written   or   oral   or

both, in respect of each course, ought to have been

made known to the students at the beginning of the

academic session. He submits that there is violation

of Article 14 of the Constitution. Shri Srivastava

has submitted that criteria as suggested by the State

of   Madhya   Pradesh   which   is   at   page   463   of   the

compilation   Volume   II   should   be   accepted   and

necessary direction be issued accordingly.

36. Shri   Kishor   Lambat,   counsel   appearing   in   Writ

Petition No.745 of 2020 submitted that when not even

48

50% syllabus is complete how the examination can be

held.   The   Bar   Council   of   India   has   resolved   to

postpone   the   All   India   Bar   Examination   keeping   in

view the present pandemic. UGC has not taken opinions

and advice of relevant bodies. Online examination is

not feasible in the present situation. 

37. Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   learned   senior   counsel

appearing   in   SLP,   filed   against   the   order   of   the

Delhi   High   Court   contends   that   present   system   of

online examination does not provide a level   playing

field,  left over students will be given chance, it

will   delay   the   whole   process.   She   submitted   that

Delhi   High   Court   in   issuing   impugned   order   dated

14.07.2020 has not considered the challenges to the

online examination. She further does not dispute that

in pursuance of the impugned direction of the Delhi

High Court online examinations have commenced by the

Delhi University.

49

38. Shri   P.S.   Narasimha   has   appeared   for   the   writ

petitioners,   the   students,   who   prayed   for   the

enforcement of  UGC  guidelines  dated 06.07.2020. He

submits that majority of students want examination to

be   held.   He   submits   that   under­Graduate   Degree   is

minimum qualification for various employment and the

final examination when takes place then students are

granted the Degree which is most relevant for grading

the students. Final evaluation for the students who

want to go abroad is necessary.   The students must

have   chance   to   improve   in   final   year   examination.

Shri Narasimha submits that University has time to

cope with the health situation. He submits that in

the pandemic life has to go on, thus, methods have to

be found. The methodology of evaluation is a part of

standard of education which is in the domain of the

UGC. He submits that conduct of final examination is

necessary. 

50

39. Shri   Vinay   Navare,   learned   senior   counsel   who

appears for the writ petitioners who have challenged

the   decision   of   the   State   Disaster   Management

Authority of the State of Maharashtra and have prayed

for enforcement of  the  guidelines  dated 06.07.2020

submits that holding of examination is legal, ethical

and academic. He submits that the students saying for

conferring   the   Degree   without   holding   examination

should   not   be   heard   under   Article   32.   The   State

Government cannot say that examination be not held.

He submits that earlier in the State of Maharashtra

Vice Chancellors have taken a decision to hold final

year examination which was made a political issue by

Yuva Sena. He submits that there is no power in the

State   in   deciding   that   Degree   be   given   without

examination. He submits that the State has no power

to   issue   any   direction   not   to   conduct   any

examination.   Shri   Navare,   however,   has   fairly

submitted   that   the   date   30.09.2020   has   to   be

moderated in the peculiar situation of a State.  

51

40. Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor   General

appearing   for   University   Grants   Commission   submits

that judicial review of the guidelines of the UGC

dated   06.07.2020   is   permissible   only   on   limited

grounds.   He   submits   that   there   are   no   sufficient

grounds to grant judicial review to the decision of

the   UGC.   He   has   referred   to   UGC   guidelines   dated

29.04.2020   and   submitted   that   the   schedule   of

conducting  of  examination  was  already  mentioned in

the   guidelines.   He   submitted   that   the   State   level

committee founded by the Minister, Higher Technical

Education for Government of Maharashtra has submitted

report dated 06.05.2020 where it was recommended that

final examination be held. He submits that the State

has   also   accepted   the   above   recommendations.

Referring to 06.07.2020 decision of Ministry of Home

Affairs,   Shri   Mehta   submits   that   if   authority   has

power to do something, the form is not material. He

submits that  under  UGC  guidelines  dated 06.07.2020

52

only final year examinations have to be held which is

a reasonable recommendation and there being option of

offline,   online   and  hybrid  mode,   the   reasonable

flexibility was provided,  sufficient  time  was  also

given   in   the   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   for

conducting the examination and under the guidelines

an opportunity was given to any student who fails to

appear,   to   sit   in   special   examination   even   after

30.09.2020   which   was   reasonable   and   protected   the

interest of the students. He submits that the order

dated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of Human Resource

Development,   guidelines   for   conducting   examination

were   issued   after   application   of   mind   and   due

consideration   of   ground   situation.   The   standard

operating procedures for conducting examination were

vetted by the Ministry of Family Health and Welfare.

The   date   30.09.2020   was   fixed   for   completion   of

examination in the larger interest of the students to

take care of the future prospects of the students.

Referring to the order dated 29.07.2020 issued by the

53

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the

guidelines   providing   that   any   area   outside   the

containment   zone,   School,   Colleges   and   Coaching

Institutions shall remain closed till 31.08.2020, he

submit   that   it   could   not   come   in   the   way   of

conducting   examination   since   the   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs   have   already   granted   exemption   for

conducting   the   examination   despite   the   closure   of

Schools,   Colleges   and   Coaching   Institutions.   Shri

Mehta   submits   that   there   are   large   number   of

Universities in the entire country who have conducted

their   examinations   and   several   Universities   are

proceeding with the holding of the examination. It is

only   the   few   States   who   have   not   conducted   the

examination.   Shri   Mehta   submits   that   University

Grants Act is referable to Entry 66 List I of 7

th

Schedule and no contrary decision of the State can

stand   in   its   way.   Referring   to   Regulations,   2003,

Shri Mehta submits that as per Regulations which are

statutory, the Universities are obliged to adopt the

54

guidelines   issued   by   the   UGC.   Referring   to   the

decisions   of   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs,   Shri   Mehta

submits that in the case of National disaster, Centre

has taken care of and in the given set of facts the

State can give suggestion to change the schedule i.e.

change   the   deadline   to   hold   the   examination   i.e.

30.09.2020. He submits that deadline was issued in

the interest of the students. 

41. For the Union of India Shri S.V. Raju, learned

Additional Solicitor General has appeared. Shri Raju

submits that under the guidelines issued along with

the order of the Government of India, Ministry of

Home   Affairs   which   prohibited   opening   of   Schools,

Colleges and Institutions till 31.08.2020, there is

no   prohibition   in   any   manner   in   conduct   of   the

examination. He submits that closure of the Schools,

Colleges and Institutions has nothing to do with the

conduct   of   the   examinations   and   normally   final

examinations   are   conducted   only   after   teaching   is

55

over   i.e.     after   Colleges   are   closed.   He   further

submitted   that   it   is   not   necessary   that   the

examination must be held where teaching is imparted

or   where   attendance   took   place.   It   can   also   take

place in hall unconnected with the Schools, Colleges

and Institutions where the teaching was imparted. He

submits that the Ministry of Home Affairs has duly

examined the request of Ministry of Human Resource

Development and respondent on 06.07.2020, taking into

consideration the academic interest of large number

of students it was decided to permit the conduct of

final examinations. 

42. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to

and relied on several judgments of this Court which

shall   be   referred   to   while   considering   the

submissions of the parties.

56

43. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record. 

44. From   the   submissions   of   the   parties   following

issues arise for consideration:

(1)Whether   the   revised   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020   requiring   the   Universities   to

complete   terminal   semester/final   year

examination   by   30.09.2020   is   beyond   the

domain of the UGC and does not relate to

“co­ordination   and   determination   of

standards   in   institution   of   higher

education”?

(2)     Whether   the   revised   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020   issued   by   the   UGC   are   non­

statutory,   advisory   only   and   contrary   to

earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020?

57

(3)Whether   the   UGC   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020   are   violative   of   Article   14   of

the Constitution of India?

(4)Whether   the   UGC   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020   are   violative   of   Article   21   of

the Constitution of India and the guidelines

have  been  issued  disregarding  the  pandemic

COVID­19?

(5)  Whether the guidelines of the UGC dated

06.07.2020 are liable to be set aside on the

ground   of   non­compliance   of   Section   12   of

UGC Act, 1956?

(6)Whether the State and State’s Disaster

Management  Authority   in   exercise   of

jurisdiction under Disaster Management Act,

2005   can   take   a   decision   not   to   hold

examination   by   30.09.2020   disregarding   the

direction   in   the   UGC   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020?

58

(7)     Whether   the   State   or   State   Disaster

Management   Authority,   in   exercise   of

jurisdiction   under   Act,   2005,   can   take   a

decision   to   award   degrees   to   final

year/final   semester   students   by   promoting

them on the basis of criteria of assessment

formulated by the State/Universities on the

result   of   previous   semesters/exams   and

internal   assessment   of   final   year/terminal

semester   in   disregard   to   the   guidelines

dated   06.07.2020   which   require   holding   of

examination of final year/terminal semester

by 30.09.2020?

Issue No.1

45. We, in the present batch of cases are concerned

with examinations by the Universities and the degrees

to   be   conferred   to   graduates   and   postgraduates.   A

University   is   an   institution   of   higher   education.

Education   plays   a   very   significant   role   in

59

development of personality of an individual as well

as   in   the   progress   and   development   of   a   country.

After   independence   of   our   country,   looking   to   the

pivotal role of higher education, the Government of

India constituted a Commission known as “University

Education  Commission”  with  Dr.  S.  Radhakrishnan as

Chairman.   The Commission submitted a report, which

mentioned   “Universities   as   the   organs   of

Civilisation”.  The report emphasised on the need for

higher   standards   in   Universities   dealing   with

standards   of   teaching   and   examinations.     The

Commission   recorded   its   views   in   the   following

words:­

“The need for High Standards .

Introduction ­ It is the primary duty of

a   university   to   maintain   the   highest

standards of its teaching and examinations.

A university is a place of higher education

where the personality and capacities of the

students   are   developed   to   the   utmost   by

teachers who should themselves be at work

at   the   frontiers   of   knowledge   in   their

respective   fields.   The   success   of   a

university is to be judged as much by the

type   of   graduate   it   turns   out   as   by   the

60

amount and quality of research contributed

by its teachers and research students. It

must be clearly recognized that there is no

conflict   involved   between   the   twofold

function   of   a   university   to   educate   its

members   and   to   advance   the   frontiers   of

knowledge ­ the two functions are, in fact,

complementary.   Unless   high   standards   of

teaching   and   examinations   are   maintained,

research   will   suffer,   since   research   can

continue uninterruptedly only if there is a

regular   supply   of   graduates   well   prepared

by   general   education   for   specialized

research   work.   On   the   other   hand,   if

research   is   neglected   by   teachers,   their

teaching   will   lack   vitality   and   will

rapidly become stale. A degree must always

be what a university makes it by the kind

of   teaching   it   imparts   and   the   type   of

intellectual   and   social   life   it   provides

for its members. If our universities are to

be the makers of future leaders of thought

and action in the country, as they should

be,   our   degrees   must   connote   a   high

standard   of   scholarly   achievement   in   our

graduates.”

46. The   Parliament   enacted   the   University   Grants

Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “UGC

Act, 1956”) to make provision for the coordination

and determination  of  standards  in  Universities  and

for   that   purpose   to   establish   a   University   Grants

Commission.  The UGC Act, 1956 is referable to Entry

61

66 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution

which provides as under:­

“66. Co­ordination and determination of

standards   in   institutions   for   higher

education   or   research   and   scientific

and technical institutions.” 

47. The   education   including   Universities   both   in

Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution of

India was a State subject.   Entry 11 in the State

List prior to Constitution (Forty­second Amendment)

Act, 1976 provided:­

“………Education   including   Universities,

subject   to   the   provisions   of   Entries   63,

64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of

List III”.

48. By   Constitution   (Forty­second   Amendment)   Act,

1976 w.e.f. 03.01.1977, Entry 11 from List II was

omitted and was transferred and combined with subject

of Entry 25 of List III.  Entry 25 List III as after

amendment   by   Constitution   (Forty­second   Amendment)

Act, 1976 is to the following effect:­

62

“25.     Education,   including   technical

education,   medical   education   and

universities, subject to the provisions of

entries   63,   64,   65   and   66   of   List   I;

vocational   and   technical   training   of

labour.”

49. Education including university education, thus,

is   now   a   concurrent   subject   where   both   State

legislature as  well as  Parliament  have  legislative

competence.  Entry 11 of List II as existed prior to

Constitution   (Forty­second   Amendment)   Act,   1976   as

well   as   Entry   25   of   List   III   is   subject   to   the

provisions   of   Entry   66   of   List   I,   which   is     the

Constitutional Scheme delineated by Seventh Schedule

of the Constitution of India.   The inter­play with

regard to legislation by State referable to earlier

Entry 11 of List II as well as Entry 25 of List III

with   that   of   Entry   66   of   List   I   came   for

consideration   before   this   Court   in   several   cases.

The   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in  Gujarat

University   and   Anr.   Vs.   Shri   Krishna   Ranganath

Mudholkar and Ors.,  AIR 1963 SC 703  laid down that

63

although there may be overlapping    between a State

Legislation   referable   to   Entry   11   of   List   II   and

Parliament legislation referable to Entry 66 List I

but to the extent of overlapping the power conferred

by Item 66 of List I must prevail over power of the

State.   In   paragraph   23   of   the   judgment,   the

Constitution Bench Laid down:­

“……………………………Use of the expression "subject

to" in item 11 of List II of the Seventh

Schedule clearly indicates that legislation

in   respect   of   excluded   matters   cannot   be

undertaken   by   the   State   Legislatures.   In

Hingir­Rampur   Coal   Co.   Ltd.   Vs.   State   of

Orissa [1961] 2 SCR 537: (AIR 1961 SC 459),

this Court in considering the import of the

expression "subject to" used in an entry in

List II, in relation to an entry in List I

observed   that   to   the   extent   of   the

restriction   imposed   by   the   use   of   the

expression "subject to" in an entry in List

II, the power is taken away from the State

Legislature.     Power   of   the   State   to

legislate in respect of education including

Universities must to the extent to which it

is   entrusted   to   the   Union   Parliament,

whether such power is exercised or not, be

deemed to be restricted…………………………”

64

50. A Constitution Bench of this Court in  Dr. Preeti

Srivastava   and   Anr.   Vs.   State   of   M.P.   and   Ors.,

(1999) 7 SCC 120 had occasion to consider the inter­

play between Entry 66 of List I and that of Entry 25

of List III.  The Constitution Bench had occasion to

consider a Government order dated 11.10.1994 issued

by the State of Uttar Pradesh where for admission in

Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination percentage

of   45%   marks   was   fixed   for   the   general   category

candidates, cut­off for reserved category candidates,

i.e.,  Scheduled Castes, Scheduled  Tribes  etc.,  was

fixed at 35% and thereafter, by another G.O. dated

31.8.1995 the State of Uttar Pradesh completely did

away with a cut­off percentage of marks in respect of

the   reserved   category   candidates,   which   was

challenged before this Court.   This Court held that

while   laying   down   minimum   qualifying   marks   for

admission to the Post Graduate Courses, it was not

open to the State Government to say that there will

be   no   minimum   qualifying   marks   for   the   reserved

65

category candidates  in  Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. Vs.

State of U.P. and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 90.  The State of

U.P. issued  an ordinance on 15.01.1997 revising the

minimum qualifying  marks  for  the  reserved  category

candidates   from   35%   to   20%,   which   ordinance   was

challenged   before   this   Court   by   means   of   writ

petition   under   Article   32.     Similarly,   State   of

Madhya Pradesh also by Government Order directed the

minimum qualifying  marks  for  the  reserved  category

candidates be fixed 20% for Scheduled Casts and 15%

for Scheduled Tribes, which was also under challenge.

This   court   in   the   above   context   had   occasion   to

consider   the   Regulations   framed   under   the   Medical

Council Act, 1956, a Parliamentary legislation, which

Regulation   provided   standard   of   qualification   for

admission in a medical course.  There being conflict

between the criteria fixed by the State of U.P. and

State of M.P. and those fixed by Regulations under

Indian   Medical   Council   Act,   the   controversy   was

66

finally   determined   by   the   Constitution   Bench,   in

paragraph 35, following was laid down:­

“35. The legislative competence of the

Parliament   and   the   legislatures   of   the

States to make laws under Article 246 is

regulated   by   the   VIIth   Schedule   to   the

Constitution.   In   the   VIIth   Schedule   as

originally   in   force.   Entry   11   of   List­II

gave to the States an exclusive power to

legislate on 

"education   including

universities   subject   to   the

provisions of retries 63, 64, 65 and

66 of List­I and Entry 25 of List­

III". 

Entry   11   of   List­II   was   deleted   and

Entry   25   of   List­III   was   amended   with

effect   from   3­1­1976   as   a   result   of   the

Constitution   42nd   Amendment   Act   of   1976.

The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List

is as follows:

“25.   Education,   including

technical   education,   medical

education   and   universities,   subject

to the provisions of entries 63, 64,

65   and   66   list­I:   vocational   and

technical training of labour.”

Entry   25   is   subject,   inter   alia,   to

Entry 66 of List­I. Entry 66 of List­I is

as follows :

“66.   Co­ordination   and

determination   of   standards   in

67

institutions for higher education or

research   and   scientific   and

technical institutions.”

Both the Union as well as the States

have   the   power   to   legislate   on   education

including medical education, subject, inter

alia,   to   Entry   66   of   List­I   which   deals

with laying down standards in institutions

for   higher   education   or   research   and

scientific   and   technical   institutions   as

also   co­ordination   of   such   standards.   A

State has, therefore, the right to control

education   including   medical   education   so

long as the field is not occupied by any

Union   Legislation.   Secondly,   the   State

cannot, while controlling education in the

State, impinge on standards in intuitions

for   higher   education.   Because   this   is

exclusively within the purview of the Union

Government.   Therefore,   while   prescribing

the   criteria   for   admission   to   the

institutions for higher education including

higher medical education, the State cannot

adversely affect the standards laid down by

the Union of India under Entry 66 of List­

I. Secondly, while considering the cases on

the   subject   it   is   also   necessary   to

remember   that   from   1977   education

including,   inter   alia,   medical   and

university   education,   is   now   in   the

Concurrent   List   so   that   the   Union   can

legislate on admission criteria also. If it

does   so,   the   State   will   not   be   able   to

legislate in this field, except as provided

in Article 254.”

68

51. Constitution Bench had also occasion to elaborate

on   different   aspects   of   “standards   of   education”.

This Court held that the standards of examination is

also   one   of   the   relevant   factor   in   standards   of

education.  In paragraph 36, following has been laid

down:­

“36.  It   would   not   be   correct   to   say

that   the   norms   for   admission   have   no

connection with the standard of education,

or that the rules for admission are covered

only   by   Entry   25   of   List­III.   Norms   of

admission can have a direct impact on the

standards of education.   Of course, there

can   be   rules   for   admission   which   are

consistent with or do not affect adversely

the   standards   of   education   prescribed   by

the Union in exercise of powers under Entry

66 of List­I. For example, a State may, for

admission   to   the   post­graduate   medical

courses,   lay   down   qualifications   in

addition to those prescribed under Entry 66

of   List­I.   This   would   be   consistent   with

promoting higher standards for admission to

the   higher   educational   courses.   But   any

lowering of the norms laid down can, and do

have an adverse affect on the standards of

education   in   the   institutes   of   higher

education.     Standards   of   education   in   an

institution   or   college   depend   on   various

factors. Some of these are :

(1) The calibre of the teaching staff;

69

(2)   A   proper   syllabus   designed   to

achieve a high level of education in the

given span of time;

(3) The student­teacher ratio;

(4) The ratio between the students and

the   hospital   beds   available   to   each

student;

(5)   The   calibre   of   the   students

admitted to the institution;

(6)   Equipment   and   laboratory

facilities,   or   hospital   facilities   for

training in the case of medical colleges;

(7)   Adequate   accommodation   for   the

college and the attached hospital; and

(8) The standard of examinations held

including   the   manner   in   which   the   papers

are   set   and   examined   and   the   clinical

performance is judged.”

52. A Three Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to

consider   all   legislative   entries   pertaining   to

education including University education in  Professor

Yashpal and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.,

(2005) 5 SCC 420.  This court laid down following in

paragraphs 33, 34 and 35:­

70

“33.  The   consistent   and   settled   view   of

this Court, therefore, is that in spite of

incorporation   of   Universities   as   a

legislative head being in the State List,

the   whole   gamut   of   the   University   which

will include teaching, quality of education

being   imparted,   curriculum,   standard   of

examination   and   evaluation   and   also

research activity being carried on will not

come   within   the   purview   of   the   State

legislature on account of a specific Entry

on   co­   ordination   and   determination   of

standards   in   institutions   for   higher

education   or   research   and   scientific   and

technical education being in the Union List

for   which   the   Parliament   alone   is

competent. It is the responsibility of the

Parliament to ensure that proper standards

are maintained in institutions for higher

education   or   research   throughout   the

country and also uniformity in standards is

maintained.

34.  In   order   to   achieve   the   aforesaid

purpose,   the   Parliament   has   enacted   the

University   Grants   Commission   Act.   First

para   of   the   Statement   of   Objects   and

Reasons of the University Grants Commission

Act,   1956   (for   short   "UGC   Act")   is

illustrative and consequently it is being

reproduced below :

"The   Constitution   of   India   vests

Parliament   with   exclusive   authority

in   regard   to   'co­ordination   and

determination   of   standards   in

institutions for higher education or

research   and   scientific   and

technical   institutions'.   It   is

71

obvious   that   neither   co­ordination

nor   determination   of   standards   is

possible   unless   the   Central

Government   has   some   voice   in   the

determination   of   standards   of

teaching   and   examination   in

Universities,  both   old   and   new.   It

is also necessary to ensure that the

available resources are utilized to

the   best   possible   effect.   The

problem   has   become   more   acute

recently on account of the tendency

to   multiply   Universities.   The   need

for   a   properly   constituted

Commission   for   determining   and

allocating   to   Universities   funds

made   available   by   the   Central

Government   has   also   become   more

urgent on this account.”

35.  In the second para it is said that the

Commission   will   also   have   the   power   to

recommend   to   any   University   the   measures

necessary for the reform and improvement of

University   education   and   to   advise   the

University concerned upon the action to be

taken for the purpose of implementing such

recommendation. The Commission will act as

an   expert   body   to   advise   the   Central

Government on problems connected with the

co­   ordination   of   facilities   and

maintenance of standards in Universities.”

53. In  Maa   Vaishno   Devi   Mahila   Mahavidyalaya   Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 617 ,

72

this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and

the role of the State and Universities in the above

regard.  In paragraph 59, this court held that NCTE

is   constituted   under   the   Central   Act   with   the

responsibility of maintaining standard of education

hence the State and  Universities cannot lay down any

guideline or policy which would be in conflict with

the Central statute or the standards laid down by the

Central body.   In paragraph 59, following has been

laid down:­

“59.  The   above   enunciated   principles

clearly   show   that   the   Council   is   the

authority constituted under the Central Act

with   the   responsibility   of   maintaining

education of standards and judging upon the

infra­structure   and   facilities   available

for imparting such professional education.

Its   opinion   is   of   utmost   importance   and

shall take precedence over the views of the

State as well as that of the University.

The concerned Department of the State and

the affiliating University have a role to

play but it is limited in its application.

They   cannot   lay   down   any   guideline   or

policy which would be in conflict with the

Central statute or the standards laid down

by the Central body. State can frame its

73

policy for admission to such professional

courses but such policy again has to be in

conformity   with   the   directives   issued   by

the   Central   body.   In   the   present   cases,

there is not much conflict on this issue,

but it needs to be clarified that while the

State grants its approval, and University

its   affiliation,   for   increased   intake   of

seats   or   commencement   of   a   new

course/college,   its   directions   should   not

offend and be repugnant to what has been

laid   down   in   the   conditions   for   approval

granted   by   the   Central   authority   or

Council. What is most important is that all

these authorities have to work ad idem as

they all have a common object to achieve

i.e. of imparting of education properly and

ensuring maintenance of proper standards of

education,   examination   and   infrastructure

for betterment of educational system. Only

if   all   these   authorities   work   in   a

coordinated   manner   and   with   cooperation,

will   they   be   able   to   achieve   the   very

object for which all these entities exist.”

54. In another judgment of this Court in   University

Grants   Commission   and   Anr.   Vs.   Neha   Anil   Bobde

(Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519 , the qualifying criteria

fixed by the UGC came for consideration.  Bombay High

Court had ruled out that UGC lacked the competence to

fix   the   aggregate   marks   as   the   final   qualifying

criteria  after  the  candidates  obtained  the  minimum

74

marks prescribed before the declaration of result of

N.E.T. examination.  The judgment of the Bombay High

Court   was   in   appeal   before   this   Court   where   this

Court   categorically   laid   down   that   UGC   being   an

expert body is entrusted with duty to take such steps

as   it   may   think   fit   for   the   determination   and

maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and

research   in   the   University.     In   paragraph   22,

following was laid down :­

“22.  We   have   elaborately   referred   to

various   statutory   provisions   which   would

clearly indicate that the UGC as an expert

body   has   been   entrusted   by   UGC   Act   the

general duty to take such steps as it may

think   fit   for   the   determination   and

maintenance   of   standards   of   teaching,

examination   and   research   in   Universities.

It   is   also   duty   bound   to   perform   such

functions as may be prescribed or as may be

deemed   necessary   by   the   Commission   for

advancing the cause of higher education in

India. The UGC has also got the power to

define   the   qualification   that   should

ordinarily be required for any person to be

appointed   to   the   teaching   staff   of   the

University and to regulate the maintenance

of standards and coordination of work and

faculties in the Universities.”

75

55. This Court further held that in academic matters

unless   there   is   a   clear   statutory   violation,   this

Court shall keep their hands off since the issues

fall within the domain of the experts.  In paragraph

31, following was laid down:­

“31.   We   are   of   the   view   that,   in

academic matters, unless there is a clear

violation   of   statutory   provisions,   the

Regulations or the Notification issued, the

Courts   shall   keep   their   hands   off   since

those issues fall within the domain of the

experts. This Court in University of Mysore

v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq

Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8

SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary

Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has

taken   the   view   that   the   Court   shall   not

generally   sit   in   appeal   over   the   opinion

expressed   by   expert   academic   bodies   and

normally it is wise and safe for the Courts

to leave the decision of academic experts

who are more familiar with the problem they

face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as

an expert body has been entrusted with the

duty to take steps as it may think fit for

the   determination   and   maintenance   of

standards   of   teaching,   examination   and

research in the University. For attaining

the said standards, it is open to the UGC

to   lay   down   any   "qualifying   criteria",

which has a rational nexus to the object to

be   achieved,   that   is   for   maintenance   of

standards   of   teaching,   examination   and

research. Candidates declared eligible for

76

lectureship   may   be   considered   for

appointment   as   Assistant   Professors   in

Universities and colleges and the standard

of   such   a   teaching   faculty   has   a   direct

nexus with the maintenance of standards of

education to be imparted to the students of

the universities and colleges. UGC has only

implemented the opinion of the Experts by

laying down the qualifying criteria, which

cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal

or discriminatory or violative of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.”

56. Now,   we   come   to   the   Revised   Guidelines   dated

06.07.2020, which is under challenge before us. The

Guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   were   issued   in

continuation to earlier Guidelines dated 29.04.2020.

The   Guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   provided   that

Universities are required to complete the examination

by the end of September, 2020 in offline (pen and

paper)/online / blended (offline and online mode) all

terminal semester/final year examinations 2020.  The

Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 intended that it is only

after   holding   of   terminal   semester/final   year

examination,   Universities   may   proceed   to   grant

77

degrees.     The   challenge   to   Guidelines   is   on   the

ground that Guidelines are beyond the domain of UGC

and   does   not   relate   to   “co­ordination   and

determination of standards in institution of higher

education”.     Undoubtedly,   the   UGC   Act   has   been

enacted in reference to Entry 66 List I where the

preamble of the Act provides:­

“An Act to make provision for the co­

ordination   and   determination   of   standards

in   Universities   and   for   that   purpose,   to

establish a University Grants Commission.”

57. Section 12 which enumerates the functions of the

Commission provides that it shall be the general duty

of the Commission to take, in consultation with the

Universities   or   other   bodies   concerned,   all   such

steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co­

ordination   of   University   education   and   for   the

determination   and   maintenance   of   standards   of

teaching, examination and research in Universities.

The   use   of   expression   “examination”   in   Section   12

78

itself makes it clear that steps taken by the UGC

under Section 12 may relate to the “examination as

well”.  In Professor Yashpal (supra)  in paragraph 32,

this Court has held that the standards of education

in an institution depends on various factors, one of

which   includes   “the   standard   of   examinations   held

including the manner in which the papers are set and

examined”.  

58. The sheet anchor of the argument as stressed by

Shri   Arvind   P.   Datar   is   the   Constitution   Bench

judgment of this Court in   Modern Dental College and

Research Centre and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353.    Learned senior counsel

has relied on observation of this Court in paragraph

101.   Relevant observation made in paragraph 101 is

as follows:­ 

“101. To our mind, Entry 66 in List I

is a specific Entry having a very specific

and   limited   scope.   It   deals   with   co­

ordination   and   determination   of   standards

in   institution   of   higher   education   or

79

research   as   well   as   scientific   and

technical   institutions.   The   words   “co­

ordination and determination of standards”

would mean laying down the said standards.

Thus,   when   it   comes   to   prescribing   the

standards for such institutions of higher

learning, exclusive domain is given to the

Union.   However,   that   would   not   include

conducting   of   examination,   etc.   and

admission of students to such institutions

or   prescribing   the   fee   in   these

institutions of higher education, etc……..” 

59. To comprehend the import of the above observation

made by this Court, we need to look into the issue,

which has arisen for consideration in above case. The

enactment, which came for consideration before this

Court in the above case was “Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan

Sanstha   (Pravesh   Ka   Viniyaman   Avam   Shulk   Ka

Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007”.  The aforesaid Act, 2007

as well as the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and

Dental   Postgraduate   Course   Entrance   Examination

Rules, 2009 came to be challenged before the High

Court and the High court upheld the provisions of the

Act and Rules, which came to be questioned before

80

this Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre

(supra).   The Constitution Bench itself in paragraph

83   of   the   judgment   has   noted   that   the   State

enactments does not run foul of any of the existing

central law.  Paragraph 83 of the judgment needs to

be quoted, which is to the following effect:­

“83.   The enactment in question does

not run foul of any of the existing Central

laws. As far as the introduction of a CET

at a national level is concerned, the same

was   not   enforced   during   the   period   of

operation   of   the   State   statute.   In   any

event, there being no Regulations regarding

fixation or determination of fees of these

institutions to ensure that the same does

not   allow   commercialisation   or

profiteering,   the   State   Legislature   was

well   competent   to   enact   provisions

regarding the same.”

60. The   issue,   which   was   raised   before   the

Constitution Bench was whether the subject matter of

admissions   was   covered   exclusively   by   Entry   66   of

List   I,   thereby   the   States   had   no   legislative

competence to deal with the subject of admissions or

determination of fee to be charged by professional

81

educational institutions.   The said issue has been

noticed in paragraph 98 in following words:­

“98. The next issue to be considered is

whether   the   subject­matter   of   admissions

was covered exclusively by List I Entry 66,

thereby   the   States   having   no   legislative

competence   whatsoever   to   deal   with   the

subject of admissions or determination of

fee   to   be   charged   by   professional

educational institutions.”

61. In paragraph 101, the Constitution Bench repelled

the above submission and in the above context the

observations   were   made   “however,   that   would   not

include conducting of examination, etc. and admission

of students to such institutions or prescribing the

fee in these institutions of higher education, etc.” 

62. The Constitution Bench in paragraph 101 has used

the expression “not include  conducting of examination

etc.”   In the present case, there is no claim on

behalf of the UGC that it is the UGC which shall

conduct  the   examination   of   the   graduate   and

82

postgraduate students.   The examinations are to be

conducted by the respective Universities only.   The

above   observations   made   by   Constitution   Bench   in

paragraph 101 as relied by learned senior counsel for

petitioner, cannot be treated to be laying down any

preposition that University Grants Commission has no

competence to lay down any standards with regard to

examination.  We, thus, are of the considered opinion

that the Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are not beyond

the   domain   of   the   UGC   and   they   relate   to   co­

ordination   and   determination   of   standards   in

institutions of higher education.

Issue No.2   

63. The   issue   consists   of   two   parts,   i.e.,   (i)

whether the Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are

non­statutory   and   advisory   only   and   (ii)   the

Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are contrary to earlier

Guidelines   dated   29.04.2020.     We   may   take   up   the

83

second part first.   The Guidelines dated 29.04.2020

were   issued   with   heading   “UGC   Guidelines   on

Examinations and Academic Calendar in view of COVID­

19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown”.  With regard to

examination of 2019­2020, several Universities have

conducted examinations full or partial, some of the

Universities were yet to commence their examination.

At the outbreak of pandemic COVID­19, the Government

of   India,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   issued   various

orders and had taken measures to prevent its spread

across the country including lockdown where several

activities were prohibited due to the situation as

developed from the last week of March, 2020. Neither

any   teaching   could   be   done   in   the   colleges/

Universities nor any examination could be held for

the months together.   Since the examinations could

not be held in the month of March to June, 2020, by

which   period   usually   the   examinations   of   all

Universities are completed and results are declared,

UGC came with Guidelines on Examinations and Academic

84

Calendar for the Universities.  The Guidelines begins

with following introduction:­

“Introduction 

The   whole   world,   including   India,   is

passing   through   unprecedented   difficult

times   due   to   the   outbreak   of   COVID­19

pandemic. As all universities and colleges

are   closed   due   to   national   lockdown,   the

teaching   –   learning   process   and   research

activities have been badly disrupted. The

schedule of Terminal Semester examinations

has also got disturbed. In such scenario,

it   is   joint   responsibility   of   all   the

stakeholders to manage multiple key issues

relating   to   academic   activities   in   the

institutions. While it is crucial to follow

measures taken by the Government to contain

the   spread   of   COVID­19,   it   is   also

important   to   continue   the   educational

process making effective use of technology

and   other   available   options.   Future   may

have many uncertainties but difficult times

demand quick appropriate decisions. We must

be   optimistic   that   we   can   reinvent   work

again and engage the students in effective

and   constructive   ways.   The   University

Grants   Commission   (UGC)   has   been   engaged

with this issue and contemplating measures

to face the challenge of safeguarding the

interests   of   the   academic   fraternity   in

general   and   students   in   particular.

Confronted   with   vital   issues   of

examinations   and   academic   calendar,   UGC

constituted   an   Expert   Committee   to

deliberate   on   these   issues   and   make

recommendations to address them.” 

85

64. The University Grants Commission has constituted

an Expert Committee and it was on the basis of report

submitted   by   Expert   Committee   Guidelines   dated

29.04.2020 was issued.   It is relevant to extract

following portion of the guidelines:­

“1.   Maintaining   the   sanctity   of

academic   expectations   and   integrity   of

examination   process,   the   universities   may

adopt alternative and simplified modes and

methods   of   examinations   to   complete   the

process   in   shorter   period   of   time   in

compliance   with   CBCS   requirements   as

prescribed by UGC from time to time. These

may   include   MCQ/   OMR   based   examinations,

Open   Book   Examination,   Open   Choices,

assignment/   presentation­based   assessments

etc. 

2. The universities may adopt efficient

and   innovative   modes   of   examinations   by

reducing the time from 3 hours to 2 hours

assigned   to   each   examination,   if   need

arises   but   without   compromising   the

quality,   so   that   the   process   may   be

completed   in   multiple   shifts   and,   at   the

same   time,   sanctity   to   evaluate   the

performance   of   a   student   is   also

maintained.

3.   The   universities   may   conduct

Terminal   /   Intermediate   Semester   /   Year

examinations in offline / online mode, as

per   their   Ordinances/   Rules   and

86

Regulations,   Scheme   of   Examinations,

observing   the   guidelines   of   “social

distancing” and keeping in view the support

system   available   with   them   and   ensuring

fair opportunity to all students.

4.   Terminal   semester   /   year

examinations for PG/ UG courses/ programmes

may   be   conducted   by   universities   as

suggested in the academic calendar keeping

in   mind   the   protocols   of   “social

distancing”.

5.   For   intermediate   semester/year

students,   the   universities   may   conduct

examinations, after making a comprehensive

assessment of their level of preparedness,

residential status of the students, status

of   COVID­19   pandemic   spread   in   different

region / state and other factors.

In case the situation does not appear

to be normal in view of COVID­19, in order

to maintain “social distancing”, safety and

health   of   the   students,   grading   of   the

students could be composite of 50% marks on

the   basis   of   the   pattern   of   internal

evaluation adopted by the universities and

the remaining 50% marks can be awarded on

the   basis   of   performance   in   previous

semester only (if available). The internal

evaluation   can   be   continuous   evaluation,

prelims, mid­semester, internal assignments

or   whatever   name   is   given   for   student

progression. 

In   the   situations   where   previous

semester   or   previous   year   marks   are   not

available, particularly in the first year

of   annual   pattern   of   examinations,   100%

87

evaluation   may   be   done   on   the   basis   of

internal evaluation. 

If the student wishes to improve the

grades, he/she may appear in special exams

for such subjects during next semester. 

This   provision   for   intermediate

semester   examinations   is   only   for   the

current academic session (2019­20) in view

of   COVID­19   pandemic,   while   maintaining

safety and health of all the stakeholders

and sanctity and quality of examinations.”

65. The   Guidelines   also   contains   academic   calendar

suggested   for   the   academic   session   2019­2020   and

dates for conduct of examinations were also suggested

as   01.07.2020   to   31.07.2020.     It   is   true   that

Guidelines mentioned that Guidelines are advisory in

nature and each University may chart out its plan of

action   taking   into   consideration   the   issues

pertaining to pandemic COVID­19.   A reading of the

Guidelines indicate that ample latitude was given to

the   Universities   to   conduct   terminal/intermediate/

semester   year   examinations   in   offline   and   online

mode.   The Guidelines, however, cannot be read to

88

mean that Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 left it to the

wisdom of the Universities to either conduct terminal

semester/final year examinations or not to conduct,

which is clear from clauses 4 and 5 under the heading

“Examinations”. Clause 4 specifically provides that

terminal semester /final year examinations for PG/ UG

courses/ programmes may be conducted by universities

as suggested in the academic calendar keeping in mind

the protocols of “social distancing”.   The academic

calendar, which is part of the Guidelines suggested

the date for start of the examinations as 01.07.2020.

When we read clause 5, the difference between clause

4   and   5   is   clear.     With   regard   to   intermediate

semester /year students there is express mention that

“In case the situation does not appear to be normal

in view of COVID­19, grading of the students could be

composite of 50% marks on the basis of the pattern of

internal  evaluation adopted by the universities and

the remaining 50% marks can be awarded on the basis

of   performance   in   previous   semester.”     But   this

89

option   is   not   mentioned   in   clause   4   of   the

Guidelines, which referred to terminal semester/final

year examinations.   The Guidelines dated 29.04.2020

was issued for a purpose and object with latitude to

the Universities to chart their own plan/course but

the   argument   cannot   be   accepted   that   Universities

were not to follow the Guidelines on the pretext that

it   uses   the   expression   “advisory”.     The   Revised

Guidelines  dated  06.07.2020 were  issued looking to

the situation that COVID­19 cases are still rising

and likely to increase further and as per academic

calendar   in   the   Guidelines   dated   29.04.2020,   the

examinations were to complete by 31.07.2020.  The UGC

requested   the   Expert   Committee   to   revisit   the

Guidelines. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 in fact

grant   further   time   requiring   the   completion   of

examination by 30.09.2020.   When we look into the

substance   of   the   Guidelines   dated   29.04.2020   and

Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020, it is clear that

Guidelines  dated  06.07.2020 are in  continuation to

90

the   earlier   Guidelines   and   not   contrary   to   the

earlier   Guidelines.     We   have   to   look   into   the

substance of the Guidelines and find out the intent

and object of the Guidelines.   The Guidelines were

issued   with   the   object   that   a   uniform   academic

calendar   be   followed   by   all   the   Universities   and

final   terminal   semester/final   year   examinations   be

held.   With   regard   to   intermediate   semester/year

examination,     the   earlier   UGC   Guidelines   dated

29.04.2020 have been continued even in the Revised

Guidelines dated 06.07.2020.  We, thus, do not accept

the submission of petitioners that Guidelines dated

06.07.2020 are contrary to the earlier Guidelines.

66. Now, coming to the first part of the issue that

the Guidelines are non­statutory and advisory only,

it is the case of both the parties that Guidelines

have   been   issued   by   the   UGC   in   exercise   of   power

under Section 12.   Section 12 of the Act provides

that it shall be the general duty of the Commission

91

to take all such steps as it may think fit for the

promotion and co­ordination of University education

and   for   the   determination   and   maintenance   of

standards  of  teaching,  examination  and  research in

Universities.  The words “all such steps” are of wide

import.     The   steps   referred   to   in   Section   12   may

include issuance of guidelines, directions, circulars

etc.     The   Guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   has   to   be

treated to have been issued in exercise of statutory

powers   vested   in   the   Commission   under   Section   12.

Guidelines  issued  in  exercise  of  statutory  powers,

thus, cannot be said to be non­statutory.  There is

one more reason to hold the Guidelines have statutory

force.  The University Grants Commission, in exercise

of power under Section 26 sub­section (1) of the Act,

1956   have   made   the   Regulations   namely,   “the

UGC(Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of

the   Master's   Degree   through   Formal

Education)Regulations, 2003” , on which both learned

counsel   for   the   petitioners   as   well   as   learned

92

counsel for the UGC have placed reliance. Regulation

6,   which   deals   with   “examination   and   evaluation”

contains following regulation as Regulation 6.1:­

“6.1   The   university   shall   adopt   the

guidelines   issued   by   the   UGC   and   other

statutory   bodies   concerned   from   time   to

time   in   respect   of   conduct   of

examinations.“ 

67. The   statutory   Regulation,   2003   thus,

categorically   requires   Universities   to   adopt   the

Guidelines   issued   by   the   UGC,   hence,   it   is   the

statutory   duty   of   the   Universities   to   adopt   the

guidelines issued by the UGC.   It is the statutory

obligation   of   the   Universities   to   adopt   the

Guidelines and the Guidelines cannot be ignored by

terming it as non­statutory or advisory.   

Issue No.3

68. The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have been

challenged claiming that it violates Article 14 of

the   Constitution.   It   is   submitted   that   the   UGC

93

guidelines discriminate between the students of Final

year and First/Second year. The UGC guidelines have

been   termed   as   unreasonable   and   arbitrary.   It   is

further submitted that impugned guidelines failed the

test   of   Article   14   because   they   apply   throughout

India and one fixed date i.e. 30th September, 2020,

irrespective   of   the   conditions   prevailing   in   the

States/Universities, issuing one deadline results in

unequals being treated equally.

69. The submission is that the impugned guidelines

discriminate between the students of First year and

Final year and carves out one class of students from

homogeneous   class;   The   impugned   guidelines   are   in

continuation to earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020

and   the   guidelines   dated   29.04.2020   dealt   with

terminal semester/ final year examination in clause

four and for intermediate semester/year students in

clause five. 

94

70. The   earlier   guidelines   provided   that   the

examination may be conducted, however, an option was

given with regard to intermediate/year students for

their promotion on the basis of internal assessment

and performance in the previous semesters. Holding of

examination   for   the   Final   year   students   was   made

necessary   by   the   impugned   guidelines.   The   Final

year/terminal   semesters   examinations   are   important

because the learning process is a dynamic interaction

where the only way to figure out what students know

is   to   seek   evidence   of   their   knowledge   and   to

evaluate   it.   Performance   in   examination   especially

Final   year/terminal   semester   examination   are

reflection  of  competence  of the students.  Terminal

semester/Final   year   examination   also   provides   an

opportunity   to   the   students   to   improve   upon   their

overall   score/marks   which   are   very   crucial   for

academic excellence and opportunities of employment.

Final   year/terminal   semester   examination   of   under­

Graduate   or   post­Graduate   is   an   opportunity   for

95

student to show  his optimum calibre which pave his

future career both in academics and employment. We do

not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the

revised   guidelines   of   University   Grants   Commission

dated   06.07.2020   which   require   all   Universities/

Collages to conduct at least the final year/terminal

semester examination.

71. The   differentiation   made   by   revised   guidelines

to hold Final year/ Terminal semester examination has

a   rational   basis   and   there   is   an   intelligible

differentia   between   the   student   of   Final

year/Terminal  semester  and  other  students.  We  thus

reject the challenge on the ground that there is any

hostile discrimination between the students of Final

year/Terminal semester and other students.

72.   The   further   submission   that   the   guidelines

failed   the   test   of   Article   14   because   they   apply

throughout   India   and   being   one   fixed   date   i.e.

96

30.09.2020 irrespective of the conditions prevailing

in the individual States/Universities also cannot be

accepted.   Even   the   earlier   guidelines   dated

29.04.2020  provided for an  academic calendar  which

mentioned 01.07.2020   to 15.07.2020 for conduct of

Terminal   semester/Final   year   examination   and

16.07.2020   to   31.07.2020   for   Intermediate

semester/year examination. When the academic calendar

is set, fixed dates are always given for uniformity.

The UGC had rightly fixed a date for completion of

the   Terminal   semester/Final   year   examination

throughout the country to maintain uniformity in the

academic calendar. 

73.  The students who look forward for admission in

higher   classes   or   take   employment   require   final

degree   for   their   career   prospect   and   to   maintain

uniformity in dates by which final examinations are

over is with the object of students welfare and for

their career and it cannot be said that since uniform

97

date has been fixed by which Terminal semester/ Final

year examination are to be completed, Article 14 has

been violated. 

74. Both, the earlier guidelines as well as revised

guidelines have taken due notice of the prevailing

situation of Covid­19 and it cannot be said that the

expert body is unaware of Pandemic spread throughout

the Country. The criticism of guidelines that they

are   unreasonable   does   not   inspire   any   confidence.

Following features in the revised guidelines clearly

indicate   that   expert   body   took   measures   in   the

interest of the students and their academic career: ­

(i) The academic calendar provided for in the earlier

guidelines contemplated conduct of examination from

01.07.2020   to   31.07.2020.   The   revised   guidelines

noticed ­ “The number of covid cases are still rising

and   likely   to   increase   further…”.   The   revised

guidelines has granted further time for completion of

examination till end of September, 2020, which was a

98

step   to   facilitate   Universities   and   Colleges   to

complete   their   examination   which   was   a   reasonable

step in wake of  the Pandemic.

(ii) The guidelines made the conduct of examination

flexible by providing three modes of examination:

(a) Offline (Pen and Paper)

(b) Online

(c) Blended (Online + Offline)

 (iii) The revised guidelines also made a provision

of examination through special chance in case a

student of Terminal semester/Final year is unable

to appear in the examination due to any reason. 

75. The provision for giving special chance to appear

in   examination   is   also   in   the   interest   of   the

students to protect those students who due to any

reason are unable to appear in the examination. The

above measures taken in the revised guidelines are

reasonable and the criticism of the guidelines that

99

they  are  unreasonable  and  manifestly  arbitrary  are

without any substance. We thus do not find revised

guidelines   to   be   violative   of   Article   14   of   the

Constitution of India.

ISSUE NO.4

76.   The   claim   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioner   is   that   compelling   attendance   of   the

students   by   holding   physical   examination   in   the

present situation of the Pandemic is a violation of

the   ‘Right   to   Life’   under   Article   21.   It   is

contended that lakhs of students, teaching and non­

teaching staff will be forced to risk their health

and lives of their family members in event they are

asked   to   participate   in   the   Final   year/   Terminal

examination. The revised guidelines have been issued

totally   disregarding   the   graveness   of   the   present

Pandemic of which the entire country is in its grip.

100

77.  There can be no doubt that it is the duty of the

State to take care of the health of its citizens.

The   various   measures   taken   by   the   specified

authorities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005,

are only with the object to contain the Pandemic and

protect the health of citizens of the country. The

criticism   of   the   revised   guidelines   is   that   it

ignores the fact that covid cases are still rising

in   the   different   part   of   the   country   and   the

guidelines had completely disregarded the health of

the students and expose the students, teachers and

non­teaching staff to the risk of contacting virus

during the course of examination.

78. It   is   relevant   to   note   that   the   revised

guidelines were issued taking into consideration the

fact that the number of covid cases are still rising

and likely to increase further which fact has been

categorically   mentioned   in   the   beginning   of   the

revised guidelines itself. Further, clause 6 of the

101

revised guidelines specifically provides that every

University/Institution   has   to   ensure   that   it   is

prepared in all respect to carry out the academic

activity following necessary protocols, guidelines,

directions, advisories issued by the Central/ State

Government from time to time in view of Covid­19.

Clause 6 of the guidelines is as follows:­

    “6.   Notwithstanding   the   above

guidelines   regarding   conduct   of

examination   and   commencement   of   next

academic   session,   every

university/institution   has   to   ensure

that it is prepared in all respects to

carry   out   the   academic   activities

following   necessary   protocols/

guidelines/   directions/   advisories

issued   by   the   Central/State

Governments and MHRD/UGC from time to

time, in view of COVID­19.”

79.  The University Grants Commission is conscious of

increasing   number   of   covid   cases   throughout   the

country   and   as   observed   above,   the   revised

guidelines have extended the period for completion

102

of examination from 31.07.2020 to 30.09.2020 which

was only due to the reason that due to Pandemic,

Universities/   Colleges   may   not   have   been   able   to

hold the examination. Further specific provisions in

the guidelines that all institutions have to follow

necessary   protocols,   guidelines,   directions,

advisories   issued   as   measures   to   contain   Covid­19

makes it clear that there is no intent to protect

the students, teachers, non­teaching staff from the

deadly virus. 

80.  It is also relevant to note that after issuance

of   revised   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   OM   dated

06.07.2020,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development

(MHRD), has issued detailed guidelines for conduct

of examination which guidelines were duly vetted by

Ministry   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare(MoHFW).   The

guidelines   for   conduct   of   examination   were

circulated by University Grants Commission vide its

103

letter   dated   08.07.2020,   “Standard   Operating

Procedure   for   conduct   of   examination   is   relevant”

which is quoted as below: ­

“Standard Operating Procedure for

conduct of Examination

1.   The   instructions,   guidelines   and

orders issued by the Central and State

Governments concerning the opening of

educational   institutions   and   safety

and   health   should   be   abided   by   the

universities   and   colleges.   However,

they   may   develop   more   stricter

provisions   and   guidelines,   if   they

find it necessary,

2.   In   case   there   is   a   restriction   on

movements   in   certain   areas,

admit/identity   cards   issued   to   the

students should be treated as a pass

for   the   movement   of   the   students.

State   Governments   should   issue

instructions to all local authorities

to   issue   movement   passes   to

invigilators and all personnel engaged

in the conduct of examination.

3. Entire examination centre floors and

walls, doors, gates, should be sprayed

with disinfectant.

104

4. Fresh mask and gloves to be used by

exam   functionaries   after   staff

verification is done.

5. Sanitizer bottles should be arranged

at the entry gate, examination rooms,

staff/observer   room,   etc,   and   should

be replenished regularly.

6. All liquid handwash bottles should be

replenished   in   restrooms   and   entry

gate whenever required.

7.   Candidate   Seating   Area   should   be

thoroughly sanitised (desk and chair)

after every session.

8. All the washrooms should be cleaned

and disinfected.

9. All door handles, staircase railing,

lift   buttons,   etc,   should   be

disinfected.

10.   Wheelchairs,   if   present   at   the

examination   centres,   should   be

disinfected.

11.   All   the   trash   bins   should   be

cleaned.

105

12.   Staff   verification   and   self

declaration as suggested below must be

done   as   soon   as   they   report   at   the

centre.

a.Exam   functionary   must

submit   self   declaration

about health status.

b.Thermo   gun   temperature

check must be done at staff

entrance point.

c.If   any   Examination

functionary   fails   to   meet

the   self­declaration

criteria,   or   thermo   gun

check, he/she will be asked

to   leave   the   examination

centre immediately.

d.Exam   functionary   needs   to

wear the mask and gloves at

all the time.

13. Cleanliness and hygienic conditions

as per safety and health advisories

of   the   concerned   government

departments are to be maintained at

all places.

14.   Proper   signages,   symbols,   posters,

etc.   should   be   displayed   at

appropriate place to maintain social

distancing.

15. Downloading of ‘Arogya Setu’ App may

be   advised   for   every   staff   and

106

student   of   the   University   and

College.

16.   Adequate   arrangements   of   thermal

scanners, sanitisers, facemasks and

hand gloves at all entry and exit

points including the reception area.

Wherever   possible,   students   should

be   given   fresh   face   masks   by   the

invigilators in the examination room

itself.

17.   Avoid   crowding   at   entry   and   exit

points.

18. Opening all the gates, of entry and

exit, in case HEIs have more than

one gate.

19.   Senior   staff   should   monitor   the

entry   and   exit.   There   should   be

proper   markings   with   at   least   2

metre distance where students stand

while   waiting   for   opening   of   the

college   gate.   Exit   of   students

should permitted one by one only.

20.   Thermal   screening   of   students,

wearing of face mask, sanitizing of

hands etc. be ensured.

21.   The   Invigilators,   while   on   duty,

should be continuously wearing mask,

and proper hand gloves.

107

22.     The   students   should   be   asked   to

sanitize   their   hands   before   and

after signing the Attendance sheet.

23. Students having symptoms of fever,

cough and cold should be either made

to sit in a separate room or given a

chance to appear on another day.

24.   Hand   washing   stations   with

facilities of liquid soap should be

made available so that every student

can wash her/his hand frequently.

25.   Keeping   in   view   the   physical

distancing, institutions should have

adequate rooms capacity to meet the

proper   seating   arrangement   for

examination.   Minimum   distance

between   two   students   should   be   2

metres.   Sample   seating   plan   is

annexed.

26.   Adequate   arrangements   for   safe

drinking   water   be   made   on   the

campus.

27. Adequate supply of water in toilets

and for hand washing be ensured.

28. Dustbins must be cleaned and covered

properly.

108

29. Proper sanitization of buses, other

transport and official and vehicles

of the institution.

30. At the end of the day­

a.Used   gloves   and   masks

should be disposed only in

a pedal push covered bin at

the   Examination   Centre   and

outside   the   examination

room/hall.

b.Safely dispose off all used

masks   and   gloves   discarded

at   the   examination   centres

or   outside   the   examination

centre in trash bin bags at

suitable   place   and   as   per

standard   guidelines   issued

by health authority.”

81. The Standard operating procedure for conduct

of   examination   as   extracted   above   make   it

abundantly clear that UGC, MHRD, and Ministry of

Health   and   Family   Welfare   are   fully   concerned

with   the   health   of   all   stakeholders   i.e.   the

students as well as exam functionaries. 

109

82.  In view of the above, we are not persuaded

to accept the submissions of the petitioner that

the revised guidelines are violative of Article

21 of the Constitution.

ISSUE NO.5

83.   The   revised   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   have

been challenged on the ground that it has been issued

in the breach of Section 12(1) of the UGC Act, 1956.

The submission is that Section 12(1) mandates that

the Commission in consultation with the Universities

and other bodies concerned  shall take all such steps

as it may think fit.   It is submitted that before

issuance of the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020,

the UGC was required to consult all the Universities

and other bodies concerned. The submission is that

the   expression   ‘other   bodies   concerned’   used   in

Section   shall   include   State   Disaster   Management

Authority which has been constituted in each state

110

and before issuance of guidelines dated 06.07.2020,

it  was obligatory for the UGC to consult the State

Disaster Management Authority. Further submission is

that the expression ‘other bodies’ may also include

health experts and UGC was required to consult health

experts before  issuing  the  revised  guidelines.  The

UGC   having   failed   to   consult   the   Universities   or

other bodies, the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are in

breach of Section 12 and are liable to set aside on

this ground alone.

84. For appreciating the above challenge raised by

the petitioner, we need to look into the statutory

scheme as delineated by Section 12 of UGC Act, 1956.

Section 12 is part of Chapter III of UGC Act, 1956,

which   deals   with   “Powers   and   functions   of   the

Commission”. Section 12 bears the heading “Functions

of   the   Commission”.   Section   12   as   relevant   is   as

follows:­

111

“POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION  

Functions 

of the

Commission

12.   It   shall   be   the   general   duty   of   the

Commission to take, in consultation with the

Universities or other bodies concerned, all

such   steps   as   it   may   think   fit   for   the

promotion   and   co­ordination   of   University

education   and   for   the   determination   and

maintenance   of   standards   of   teaching,

examination   and   research   in   Universities,

and   for   the   purpose   of   performing   its

functions under this Act, the Commission may

(a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities;

(b) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the

Commission,   grants   to   Universities   established   or

incorporated   by   or   under   a   Central   Act   for   the

maintenance and development of such Universities or

for any other general or specified purpose; 

(c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the

Commission, such grants to other Universities as it

may   deem   1   [necessary   or   appropriate   for   the

development   of   such   Universities   or   for   the

maintenance,   or   development,   or   both,   of   any

specified activities of such Universities] or for any

other general or specified purpose: 

Provided   that   in   making   any   grant   to   any   such

University,   the   Commission   shall   give   due

consideration  to  the  development  of the University

112

concerned, its financial needs, the standard attained

by it and the national purposes which it may serve,

[(cc) allocate and disburse out of the Fund

of   the   Commission,   such   grants   to

institution   deemed   to   be   universities   in

pursuance   of   a   declaration   made   by   the

Central   Government   under   section   3,   as   it

may deem necessary, for one or more of the

following purposes, namely: ­

(i) for maintenance in special cases,

(ii) for development.

(iii) for any other general or specified   

purpose;]

[(ccc)   establish,   in   accordance   with   the

regulations   made   under   this   Act,

institutions   for   providing   common

facilities,   services   and   programmes   for   a

group   of   universities   or   for   the

universities   in   general   and   maintain   such

institutions   or   provide   for   their

maintenance   by   allocating   and,   disbursing

out   of   the   Fund   of   the   Commission   such

grants   as   the   Commission   may   deem

necessary.]  

(d)   recommend   to   any   University   the   measures

necessary for the improvement of University education

and advise the University upon the action to be taken

for the purpose of implementing such recommendation; 

113

(e)   advise   the   Central   Government   or   any   State

Government   on   the   allocation   of   any   grants   to

Universities for any general or specified purpose out

of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated

Fund of the State, as the case may be; 

(f) advise any authority, if such advice is asked

for, on the establishment of a new University or on

proposals   connected   with   the   expansion   of   the

activities of any University; 

(g)   advise   the   Central   Government   or   any   State

Government or University on any question which may be

referred to the Commission by the Central Government

or the State Government or the University, as the

case may be; 

(h) collect information on all such matters relating

to University education in India and other countries

as it thinks fit and make the same available to any

University; 

(i)   require   a   University   to   furnish   it   with   such

information   as   may   be   needed   relating   to   the

financial position of the University or the studies

in   the   various   branches   of   learning   undertaken   in

that   University,   together   with   all   the   rules   and

regulations relating to the standards of teaching and

examination   in   that   University   respecting   each   of

such branches of learning; 

(j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed

or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for

advancing the cause of higher education in India or

114

as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of

the above functions.”

85. Section 12 begins with the words “it shall be the

general   duty   of   the   commission   to   take”,...“in

consultation   with   Universities   or   other   bodies

concerned.” What is the ambit and scope of expression

‘Universities or other bodies concerned’ has fallen

for consideration in the present case. The use of

expression ‘Universities or other bodies concerned’

is   for   purpose   and   object   which   is   clear   from

subsequent     enumerations   of   functions   of   the

commission in the Section itself. For example, we may

take functions of the commission as mentioned in sub­

clause   (d)   which   provides   that   the   Commission   may

recommend to the universities any measures necessary

for the improvement of the university education and

advise the universities upon the action to be taken

for   the   purpose   of   implementation   of   such

recommendation.   When   we   look   into   this   sub­clause

115

(d), it is clear that the function enumerated in sub­

clause is only with regard to a particular university

and for discharge of function by the commission with

regard to sub­clause (d), it has to consult only the

university concerned. 

86.   The   use   of   the   word   ‘Universities   or   other

bodies concerned’ in the opening part of the Section

has been with a purpose of referring the universities

or other bodies concerned for whom the function has

to   be   performed   by.   The   enumerations   given   from

clause   (a)   to   (j)   indicate   that   apart   from

universities the function also include advice to the

Central   Government   or   any   State   Government   on

allocation of any grant to the Universities or advise

Central   Government   or   any   State   Government   or   any

Universities on any question which may be referred to

the commission by the Central Government or the State

Government. Thus, the expression ‘other bodies’ used

116

in the opening part of the Section is in reference to

other  bodies  apart  from universities  enumerated in

Section   12.   The   expression   ‘Universities   or   other

bodies concerned’ used in the opening part of the

Section cannot be stretched to the meaning which is

now sought to be given by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. 

87.   The submission that ‘other bodies’ as used in

Section 12 should include State Disaster Management

Authority or health experts is  misconceived. Section

12 never contemplated any such “bodies”. Furthermore,

the   State   Disaster   Management   Authority   came   into

existence only after enactment of Disaster Management

Act, 2005, no such concept was there when the UGC

Act, 1956 was enacted. The expression ‘other bodies’

cannot   be   expanded   as   contended   by   the   learned

counsel   for   the   petitioner.   The   use   of   the   word

‘concerned’ after ‘Universities or other bodies’ has

117

specific purpose and meaning. The consultation with

the   Universities   or   other   bodies   concerned   was   in

reference   to   a   particular   function   which   was

enumerated in clause (a) to (j) and it has specific

reference  and  “Universities”  or other  bodies”  were

referred to in the above context. Section 12 cannot

be   interpreted   in   a   manner   that   for   taking   any

measure   with   regard   to   coordination   of   university

education  and  for  determination and maintenance of

standards   of   teaching   examination   in   the

Universities, the UGC should consult each and every

University of each and every State and only then,

such measures can be taken. Reading the provision in

above   manner   shall   make   the   functioning   of   UGC

unworkable.   There   are   more   than   nine   hundred

Universities in the country and to require UGC to

consult   more   than   nine   hundred   universities   for

taking   any   measure   will   make   the   functioning

impossible and impractical. 

118

88. Section 12 cannot be interpreted in a manner that

for taking any steps by the UGC, there is a mandatory

requirement   of   consultation   of   all   the

States/Universities failing which no measures can be

taken by the University Grants Commission. Clause (j)

of Section 12 is couched in a very vide manner which

empower   the   commission   to   perform   such   other

functions as may be prescribed or   as may be deemed

necessary by the Commission for   advancing the cause

of higher education in India or as may be incidental

or conducive to the discharge of the above function.

Any function which may be deemed necessary by the

Commission can be performed. For performance of its

function by the Commission, the Commission of its own

is   fully   competent   to   take   decisions,   issue   any

directions, guidelines, etc. The Commission may also

take   assistance   of   any   Committee   of   experts   in

discharge   of   its   functions   for   which   there   is   no

119

prohibition in the statutory scheme. In the common

counter affidavit filed by the UGC with regard to the

guidelines  dated  29.04.2020,  the  Commission has in

paragraph   8   of   the   common   counter   affidavit   has

stated   that   the   guidelines   which   contained   policy

decision taken by UGC were made following the report

by   the   Committee   under   the   Chairmanship   of   Prof.

R.C.Kuhad. Following statements have been made in the

paragraph 8: ­

“8.... It is pertinent to note that

these   Guidelines,   which   contain

policy   decisions   taken   by   the   UGC,

were   made   following   a   report   by   a

committee   under   the   Chairmanship   of

Prof.   R.C.Kuhad,   Vice­Chancellor,

Central   University   of   Haryana.   The

said   committee   consisted   of   various

experts   in   the   field   that   included

Vice­Chancellors   of   various

universities,   the   director   of   the

Inter   University   Accelerator   Centre,

New Delhi, and senior officers of the

UGC.   Therefore,   the   Guidelines   were

published   “in   consultation   with   the

Universities   or   other   bodies

concerned”, as mandated by section 12

of the UGC Act..."

120

89.   The   revised   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   was

issued   after   the   report   was   received   from   the

Committee   headed   by   Prof.   R.C.   Kuhad   as   has   been

specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 of the common

counter affidavit  in  which  following  statement  has

been made:­

“10.   That,   however,   in   June   2020,

considering the evolving situation of

the   Covid­19   pandemic,   the   UGC

requested the expert committee headed

by   Prof.   R.C.   Kuhad   to   revisit   the

‘UGC   Guidelines   on   Examinations   and

Academic Calendar for the Universities

in   View   of   COVID­19   Pandemic   and

Subsequent Lockdown’. Accordingly, the

expert committee (which also included

Vice­Chancellors   of   technical

Universities   and   a   representative   of

industry)   did   so,   and   submitted   a

report   recommending   that   terminal

semester/final year examinations would

be   conducted   by   universities/

institutions by the end of September,

2020 in offline(Pen & Paper)/ online/

blended (online + offline) mode. This

report   of   the   expert   committee   was

deliberated and approved by the UGC in

its   emergent   meeting   held   on

06.07.2020...”

121

90.  The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 12

makes it clear that for the purposes of performing

its functions under the Act as enumerated in clause

(a)   to   (j),   it   is   not   mandatory   duty   of   the

Commission to consult with the Universities or other

bodies concerned in all cases e.g. while allocating

and disbursing out of the fund of the Commission,

grants   to   the   Universities   as   enumerated   in   sub­

clause (b) and (c). It is not necessary to consult

the university to whom the grant is to be allocated

and disbursed. The expression “in consultation with

the Universities or other bodies concerned” has to be

read to mean where consultation with Universities or

other bodies concerned is necessary without which the

Commission is unable to perform its functions.

91.  We may further elaborate the point by referring

to certain other functions as enumerated in Section

12. Section 12 sub­clause (h) provides: ­

122

“(h)   collect   information   on   all   such

matters   relating   to   University

education in India and other countries

as   it   thinks   fit   and   make   the   same

available to any University;”

92.   Whether for collecting information relating to

University education in India, UGC has to consult all

900   or   more   Universities   and   whether   without

consultation with the Universities, it cannot perform

its functions under Section 12(h), the answer would

be   obviously   that   it   is   not   necessary   for   UGC   to

consult   all   the   universities   while   collecting

information   relating   to   University   Education   in

India. The expression “Universities or other bodies

concerned” has not be read in a rigid manner rather

it is flexible as per requirement of the Commission.

The   residuary   clause   i.e.   Section   12(j)   cloth   the

Commission to perform such other functions  as may be

deemed  necessary  by the Commission.   The guidelines

dated   29.04.2020   and   06.07.2020   have   been   issued

after consultation of an expert Committee headed by

123

Prof. Kuhad. The guidelines have been issued after a

report   of   an   expert   committee   consisting   of

academicians and experts. It cannot be said that the

Commission  had  no  jurisdiction  to  issue guidelines

without   consulting   all   the   Universities   in   the

Country and all the States or Union Territories. 

93.   The   UGC   is   empowered   to   perform   such   other

functions   as   may   be   deemed   necessary   by   the

Commission. If the Commission felt it necessary to

issue guidelines after obtaining a report from the

expert committee, no exception can be taken to the

procedure adopted by the Commission. The guidelines

dated 29.04.2020 as well as revised guidelines dated

06.07.2020 are general in nature and not confined to

any particular  university  or  any  particular state.

Hence,   it   cannot   be   said   that   UGC   is   obliged   to

consult all Universities or States before issuance of

the guidelines. 

124

94.   We   thus,   are   satisfied   that   guidelines   dated

06.07.2020 cannot be said to be violative of Section

12 of UGC Act, 1956.

Issue No.6

95. The submission which has been pressed before us

by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners

challenging the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020

is that the said guidelines insofar as it directs for

holding   of   the   final   year/terminal   semester

examination by 30.09.2020 does not prohibit a State

or   State   Disaster   Management   Authority   in   taking

appropriate   decision   in   exercise   of   power   under

Disaster Management Act, 2005 not to hold examination

looking to the situation in a particular State. In

this context, reference has been made to the decision

taken by the State Disaster Management Authority of

Maharashtra   dated   18.06.2020   and   the   Government

Resolution   dated   19.06.2020   by   the   State   of

125

Maharashtra   as   well   as   the   proceedings   dated

13.07.2020 of the State Disaster Management Authority

of the State of Maharashtra. The submission is that

exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005

shall override the UGC's guidelines directing holding

of   the   examination   by   30.09.2020   by   each

University/Colleges.   For   considering   the   above

submission we need to look into the statutory scheme

of   the   Disaster   Management   Act,   2005   and   various

orders   issued   thereunder.   The   Disaster   Management

Act,   2005   has   been   enacted   to   provide   for   the

effective management of disasters and for   matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3

provides   for   establishment   of   National   Disaster

Management Authority  with Prime Minister of India as

Chairperson.   Section   6   provides   for   powers   and

functions of National Authority. Section 8 provides

for   constitution   of   National   Executive   Committee.

National   Plan   is   to   be   drawn   as   per   Section   11.

Section   14   provides   for   establishment   of   State

126

Disaster Management Authority. Section 14 of the Act

is as follows:

“Section   14.   Establishment   of   State

Disaster   Management   Authority .—(1)

Every State Government shall, as soon

as   may   be   after   the   issue   of   the

notification under sub­section (1) of

section   3,   by   notification   in   the

Official   Gazette,   establish   a   State

Disaster Management Authority for the

State   with   such   name   as   may   be

specified   in   the   notification   of   the

State Government. 

(2)   A   State   Authority   shall

consist   of   the   Chairperson   and   such

number of other members, not exceeding

nine,   as   may   be   prescribed   by   the

State Government and, unless the rules

otherwise provide, the State Authority

shall   consist   of   the   following

members, namely:—

(a) the Chief Minister of the State,

who shall be Chairperson, ex officio; 

(b)   other   members,   not   exceeding

eight,   to   be   nominated   by   the

Chairperson of the State Authority; 

(c)   the   Chairperson   of   the   State

Executive Committee, ex officio. 

127

(3)   The   Chairperson   of   the   State

Authority   may   designate   one   of   the

members nominated under clause (b) of

sub­section   (2)   to   be   the   Vice­

Chairperson of the State Authority.

(4)   The   Chairperson   of   the   State

Executive Committee shall be the Chief

Executive   Officer   of   the   State

Authority, ex officio:

Provided   that   in   the   case   of   a

Union   territory   having   Legislative

Assembly,   except   the   Union   territory

of Delhi, the Chief Minister shall be

the   Chairperson   of   the   Authority

established under this section and in

case   of   other   Union   territories,   the

Lieutenant   Governor   or   the

Administrator shall be the Chairperson

of   that   Authority:   Provided   further

that   the   Lieutenant   Governor   of   the

Union territory of Delhi shall be the

Chairperson   and   the   Chief   Minister

thereof shall be the Vice­Chairperson

of the State Authority.

(5) The term of office and conditions

of   service   of   members   of   the   State

Authority   shall   be   such   as   may   be

prescribed.” 

128

96. Section   18   deals   with   powers   and   functions   of

State Authority. Section 20 provides for constitution

of   State   Executive   Committee   and   Section   22

enumerates   functions   of   the   State   Executive

Committee. Section 38 empowers the State Government

to take measures.

97.After notifying COVID­19 as pandemic the National

Disaster   Management   Authority   issued   order   dated

24.03.2020   directing   the   Ministries/Departments   of

Government   of   India,   State/Union   Territory

Governments and State/Union Territory Authorities to

take effective measures so as to prevent the spread

of   COVID­19   in   the   country.   Guidelines   and   the

measures to be taken by the Ministries, State/Union

Territory   were   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs. For the purposes of this case we may notice

the order dated 30.05.2020 issued by the Government

of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of

129

powers   conferred   under   Section   6(2)i)   of   the   Act,

2005. The guidelines for phased reopening (Unlock I)

was issued on 30.05.2020. Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the

guidelines which are relevant  are as follows:

“1.Phased   re­opening   of   areas   outside

the Containment Zones

In   areas   outside   Containment   Zones,

all   activities   will   be   permitted,

except   the   following   which   will   be

allowed,   with   the   stipulation   of

following   Standard   Operating

Procedures (SOPs) to be prescribed by

the   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family

Welfare (MoHFW), in a phased manner.

Phase I

........

Phase II

Schools,   colleges,

educational/training/   coaching

institutions   etc.,   will   be   opened

after   consultations   with   States   and

UTs.   State   Governments/UT

administrations   may   hold

130

consultations   at   the   institution

level   with   parents   and   other

stakeholders. Based on the feedback,

a decision on the re­opening of these

institutions   will   be   taken   in   the

month of July, 2020.

MoHFW   will   prepare   SOP   in   this

regard,   in   consultation   with   the

Central   Ministries/   Departments

concerned and other stakeholders, for

ensuring   social   distancing   and   to

contain the spread of COVID­19.

Phase III

........

5.States/Uts, based on their assessment

of   the   situation,   may   prohibit   certain

activities outside the Containment zones,

or   impose   such   restrictions   as   deemed

necessary.”

98.The guidelines dated 30.05.2020 were to remain in

force till 30.06.2020 during which period some of the

States   have   taken   a   decision   not   to   hold   the

examination as directed by the UGC. For the purposes

131

of this case it shall be sufficient to notice the

decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra as

well as the State Disaster Management Authority of

State   of   Maharashtra.   State   Disaster   Management

Authority   of   Maharashtra   in   its   meeting   dated

18.06.2020 took a decision not to conduct the final

year/terminal   semester   examination.   The   Government

Resolution   dated   19.06.2020   was   issued   by   the

Government   of   Maharashtra   where   the   Government

decided that taking into consideration the situation

of COVID­19 in the State of Maharashtra final year

examination   of   professional   courses   cannot   be

arranged.   With   regard   to   non­professional

(traditional) courses Government resolved to declare

result   by   way   of   adopting   suitable   formula   after

obtaining in writing from students that they intend

to get the Degree without appearing in examination.

On 18.06.2020 when the State Disaster Authority took

the decision and the Government of Maharashtra issued

Government  Resolution  the  guidelines  issued by  the

132

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   dated   30.05.2020   did   not

expressly   permit   conduct   of   examination   in

Schools/Colleges.  In  paragraph  5  of the guidelines

dated   30.05.2020   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs, States/Uts, based on their assessment of the

situation,   were   empowered   to   prohibit   certain

activities outside the Containment Zones, or impose

such restrictions as deemed necessary. When the State

Disaster   Management   Authority   and   the   State

Government   (Maharashtra)   took   a   decision   not   to

conduct   examination,   the   said   decision   was   well

within the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs. Further Disaster Management Authority of the

State is empowered  under Section 38 to take measures

for   the   purpose   of   prevention   of   disaster   and

mitigation. The decision taken by the State Disaster

Management   Authority   on   18.06.2020   as   well   as   the

State   Government's   Resolution   dated   19.06.2020

insofar they decided not to hold final year/terminal

semester  examination  by 30.09.2020  was  well within

133

the   jurisdiction   of   the   said   Authority.   We   have

noticed   that   guidelines   of   UGC   dated   06.07.2020

directed all Universities/Colleges to complete their

examinations   by   30.09.2020.   The   question   is   as   to

whether the State Disaster Management Authority could

have taken a decision contrary to the directive of

the   University   Grants   Commission   to   complete   the

examination by 30.09.3030. Reliance has been placed

on Section 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

which   provision   gives   overriding   effect   to   the

provisions of Act, 2005. Section 72 of the Act, 2005

is quoted below:

“Section   72.   Act   to   have   overriding

effect.—The provisions of this Act, shall

have   effect,   notwithstanding   anything

inconsistent   therewith   contained   in   any

other law for the time being in force or

in any instrument having effect by virtue

of any law other than this Act.” 

99.The Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers the

State Disaster Management Authority as well as the

134

State Government to take decision for prevention and

mitigation of a disaster and the action taken by the

authorities under  the  Disaster  Management  Act  have

been given overriding effect to achieve the purpose

and object of the Act. In case of a disaster   the

priority   of   all   authorities   under   the   Disaster

Management Act is to immediately combat the disaster

and contain it to save  human life. Saving of life of

human   being   is   given   paramount   importance   and   the

Act, 2005 gives primacy, priority to the actions and

measures taken under the Act over inconsistency in

any other law for the time being in force. Section 72

begins with non obstante clause. This Court in  State

(NCT   of   Delhi)   vs.   Sanjay,   2014(9)   SCC   772  in

paragraph 63 laid down following:

“63.   It   is   well   known   that   a   non­

obstante   clause   is   a   legislative   device

which   is   usually   employed   to   give

overriding   effect   to   certain   provisions

over some contrary provisions that may be

found either in the same enactment or some

other enactment, that is to say, to avoid

135

the operation and effect of all contrary

provisions. ”

100. The Kerala High Court had occasion to consider

Section   72   of   the   Disaster   Management   Act   in

reference   to   another   Central   Act   that   is   Land

Acquisition   Act.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   Kerala

High Court  (of which one of us Justice Ashok Bhushan

was also a member) laid down following in paragraph

69:

69. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 is

enacted with a definite object. Various powers

have been given to the different authorities,

including the DDMA to achieve the objects of

the   Act.   Various   statutory   plans   are   to   be

prepared for Disaster Management. In event it

is to be accepted that with regard to taking

any action with regard to a premises which is

in occupation/possession/ownership of a private

person,   the   authorities   have   first   to   draw

proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and

then issue any order under the 2005 Act is to

defeat   the   entire   purpose   and   object   of   the

2005 Act. The legislature being well aware of

the legal consequences have already engrafted

Section 72 of the Act which gives overriding

effect   to   the   provisions   of   the   2005   Act,

136

notwithstanding   anything   consistent   therewith

contained in any other law. Section 72 of the

Act is as follows:

"72.   Act   to   have   overriding   effect.­The

provisions of this Act, shall have effect,

notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent

therewith contained in any other law for

the   time   being   in   force   or   in   any

instrument having effect by virtue of any

law other than this Act."”

101.   At   this   juncture,   we   may   also   notice   the   OM

dated   06.07.2020   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Human

Resource Development as well as the decision dated

06.07.2020   of   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs.   Learned

Solicitor General appearing for the University Grants

Commission   has   submitted   that   in   case   of   National

Disaster the decision taken by the National Disaster

Authority as well as the decision of the National

Executive Committee hold the field and no contrary

decision can be taken by a State Disaster Management

Authority or State Government. It is submitted that

137

on   06.07.2020   the   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   in   a

letter   to   Union   Higher   Education   Secretary,

permitted conduct of examination  by Universities and

Institutions. The decision of the Ministry of Home

Affairs is placed on record which is to the following

effect:

"Press Information Bureau

Government of India

*****

Ministry of Home Affairs permits conduct of

examinations by Universities and Institutions

New Delhi, July, 6 2020

Ministry of Home Affairs, in a letter to Union

Higher   Education   Secretary,   today   permitted

conduct   of   examinations   by   Universities   and

Institutions. The final Term Examinations are

to   be   compulsorily   conducted   as   per   the   UGC

Guidelines   on   Examinations   and   Academic

Calendar for the Universities; and as per the

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) approved by

the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.

*****”

138

102.The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued

an   OM   dated   06.07.2020   which   is   to   the   following

effect:

“Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Department of Higher Eduction

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi,

Date the 6

th

 July, 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Instructions for conduct of 

examination­ regarding.

A   large   number   of   examinations   of   the

Universities,   IIT­JEE(Mains   &   Advance),   NEET

etc   are   scheduled   to   be   held   in   the   coming

months.   In   order   to   ensure   safety   of   the

139

examinees, as also their academic interest, the

following action may be taken.

1.Final   Term   Examinations   should   be

compulsorily conducted as per UGC Guidelines on

Examinations   and   Academic   Calendar   for   the

Universities dated 29.04.2020 which have been

again resolved today i.e. 06

th

 July, 2020.

2.All   examination   may   be   conducted   on   30

th

September, 2020.

3.Taking   into   consideration   the   academic

interest of large number of students, MHA has

agreed   to   the   request   of   MHRD   and   granted

exemption   for   the   opening   of   educational

institutions   for   the   purpose   of   holding

examinations/evaluation   work   for   Final   Term

Examinations of the Universities/Institutions.

4.MHRD   has   formulated   detailed   SOP   for

conduct of examinations with precautions to be

taken in view of COVID­19 situation. This has

been   vetted   by   the   Ministry   of   Health   and

Family Welfare. A copy of the same is enclosed

to ensure safety to all.

5.Previous instructions regarding “Work From

Home”   sent   vide   letter   dated   30.06.2020   will

not   apply   to   the   officers,   faculty   and   non­

Teaching   Staff   who   are   involved   in

Examination/Evaluation/Admission work.

140

Sd/­

(Vidya Sagar Rai)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.” 

103. A perusal of the OM dated 06.07.2020 indicates

that the Ministry of Home Affairs has agreed to the

request of the Ministry of Human Resource Development

and granted exemption for the opening of educational

institutions for the purpose of holding examinations/

evaluation work for Final Term Examinations of the

Universities/Institutions.   The   said   OM   as   well   as

letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be read

to   mean   that   it   fettered   the   jurisdiction   of   the

State Authority to take a decision considering the

situation   in   a   State   with   regard   to   conduct   of

examinations.   The   cumulative   effect   of   OM   dated

06.07.2020 and letter dated 06.07.2020 shall be that

Government of India granted exemption for holding the

examinations which shall be treated as exception to

141

the   guidelines   dated   29.06.2020   issued   by   the

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   where   Schools,   Colleges,

educational and coaching institutions  were to remain

closed till 31.07.2020. The said OM and letter dated

06.07.2020 permitting holding the examinations shall

not fetter the power of the State Disaster Management

Authority to take appropriate measures to contain the

Disaster in the State. It is relevant to notice that

State Disaster Management Authority of the State of

Maharashtra held meeting on 13.07.2020 and took the

following decision:

“.........

After   detailed   deliberations   in   the   meeting,

the following decision was taken:­

1.As per  the revised  guidelines issued

by the   University   Grants   Commission   on

July  6,   2020,   it   is   not   possible   to

conduct examinations in the State in case

of COVID­19.   Therefore,   the   decision

taken by  the   Government   on   June   19,

2020 regarding  the   final   session/final

year examinations  of   non­

professional(traditional) as well  as

professional courses was upheld.

142

2.The   University   Grants   Commission

should be   re­requested   as   it   is   not

possible to conduct the examination as per

the guidelines.”

104.   With   regard   to   conduct   of   examinations,   the

State   authorities   are   competent   to   assess   the

situation in a particular State regarding possibility

of   holding   of   examinations.   No   State   shall   permit

health of its subject to be compromised that is why

overriding power has been given to the State Disaster

Management  Authority  and  the  State  Government  with

regard to any inconsistency with any other law for

the time being in force. We have noticed above that

there are no orders or directions in the guidelines

of   the   National   Disaster   Management   Authority   or

National Executive Committee fettering the powers of

the State Disaster Management Authority and a State

Government   to   take   a   decision   as   to   whether

examinations   by   physical   mode   be   permitted   in

143

particular   State   looking   to   the   situation   in   the

State. Coming to the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 of

the UGC insofar as it directs completion of final

examinations   by   30.09.2020   which   direction   is

overridden   by   the   decision   of   the   State   Disaster

Management  Authority  and  State  Government  where it

resolved   not   to   hold   the   examinations.   We,   thus,

conclude   that   direction   of   the   University   Grants

Commission in its revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020

insofar it directs the Universities and colleges to

complete   the   final   year/terminal   examinations   by

30.09.2020   shall   be   overridden   by   any   contrary

decision   taken   by   a   State   Disaster   Management

Authority  or  the  State  Government  exercising  power

under   the   Disaster   Management   Act,   2005.   Learned

counsel appearing for the UGC has, in his submission,

submitted that UCC shall be ready to consider any

request   received   from   any   State   to   allow   the

Universities   to   re­schedule   the   date   of   final

examinations and in the event any request is made to

144

the   UGC   the   deadline   for   completion   of   the

examination can be extended by the UGC and the date

of final examinations can be rescheduled.  

Issue No.7

105.As   noted   above,   the   State   Disaster   Management

Authority (State of Maharashtra) in its meeting dated

18.06.2020 as well as the State of Maharashtra in its

Resolution dated 19.06.2020 have resolved to promote

the students without taking the final examinations.

It is useful to refer to the Government Resolution

dated 19.06.2020, which is to the following effect:

"Government Resolution:

1.In   all   non­agricultural   universities,

deemed   universities,   self­financed

universities   and   their   affiliated

colleges   for   the   academic   year   2019­20

for   organising   examinations   of   final

session/final year of graduation/ post­

graduation classes the Universities are

required to take action as per following

point (1) and (2) in A:

145

(A) Non­Professional (Traditional) Courses:

1.If   the   students   of   final   session/year

have gone through in all earlier sessions

intend to get degree certificates without

appearing   their   examination,   by   way   of

obtaining in writing from them by way of

adopting   suitable   formula   the

Universities should declare result.

2.If   the   students   of   final   session/year

have gone through in all earlier sessions

intend to appear the examination, by way

of   obtaining   in   writing   from   them

opportunity of appearing the examination

is to be given to them. After taking into

consideration the emergence of Covid­19

epidemic   at   local   level   and   local

situation and after discussing with the

concerned District Collector & President

of   Disaster   Eradication   Authority   the

Universities   should   take   suitable

decision and accordingly they may declare

the time table.

3.In case of the students of final year if

there   is   any   backlog,   in   respect   of

examinations of their backlog a meeting

is   to   be   arranged   at   Government   level

with Chancellor and concerned Officers of

the University and after discussing the

matter in this meeting suitable decision

would be taken.

146

(B)   Professional   Courses   (Engineering,

Pharmacy,   Hotel   Management,   Management

Science, Architecture, Planning, Computer

Science,   Law,   Physical   Education,

Teaching Science etc):

Taking   into   consideration   the   situation   of

Covid­19   in   the   State   the   examinations   of

final   session/final   year   of   Professional

Courses   cannot   be   arranged.   For   those

students   like   non­professional   courses   the

decision   has   been   taken   in   the   meeting   of

State   Disaster   Management   Authority   that

action would be taken as per following point

(1),   (2)   and   (3)   in   above   point   A.   The

concerned   apex   institution   of   concerned

professional courses can make a request for

getting approval to the same. In this regard

separate communication would be done.

2.This   Government   Resolution   is   being

released as per the decision taken in the

meeting held on 18

th

 June, 2020 of State

Disaster   Management   Authority   formed

under Disaster Management Act 2005.”

106.   The   guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   categorically

directed   all   Universities/Colleges   to   hold   the

examination of terminal semester/final year, option

for   not   holding   the   examination   was   given   in   the

147

revised guidelines  as well as the earlier guidelines

only   with   regard   to   intermediate/year   examination.

Before   us   submissions   have   been   addressed   by   the

learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners

contending that students can be promoted on the basis

of previous year assessment and internal assessment

which   in   no   manner   shall   be   lowering   down   the

standard of education and the decision taken by the

State  Government  and  the  State  Disaster Management

Authority   to   grant   such   promotion   is   perfectly   in

accordance with law. Referring  to Regulations, 2003

it has been submitted that students can be promoted

on the basis of cumulative grade point average. It is

submitted that students have completed five semesters

and no special importance can be attached to the last

semester, hence the Maharashtra Government's decision

to promote on the basis of previous assessment and

internal assessment was in accordance with law.

148

107. We have already held, while considering Issue

No.1, that University Grants Commission Act has been

enacted   in   reference   to   Entry   66   of   List   I.   The

States   although   have   legislative   competence   to

legislate on education including Universities but the

State Legislation is subject to Entry 66 List I. The

revised guidelines issued by UGC are statutory and

referable to University Grants Commission Act, 1956

and   shall   have   precedence   as   compared   to   any

inconsistent   decision   taken   by   the   State.   We   also

need to consider as to whether in exercise of power

under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the State or

State Disaster Management Authority could have taken

any   decision   with   regard   to   promote   the   students

without   undergoing   final   year/terminal   semester

examination. The purpose and object of the Disaster

Management Act, 2005 is management of disasters and

for   matters   connected   therewith.   The   Disaster

Management   is   a continuous and integrated process

of planning,organising, coordinating and implementing

149

measures. The Disaster Management   has been defined

in Section 2(e) to the following effect:

“Section 2(e)­  “disaster management” means

a   continuous   and   integrated   process   of

planning,   organising,   coordinating   and

implementing measures which are necessary

or expedient for—

(i) prevention of danger or threat of

any disaster;

(ii)   mitigation   or   reduction   of   risk

of   any   disaster   or   its   severity   or

consequences;

(iii) capacity­building;

(iv)   preparedness   to   deal   with   any

disaster;

(v) prompt response to any threatening

disaster situation or disaster;

(vi)   assessing   the   severity   or

magnitude of effects of any disaster;

(vii) evacuation, rescue and relief;

150

(viii)   rehabilitation   and

reconstruction;”

108. The word mitigation has also been defined in

Section 2(i) as follows: 

"Section 2(i)­ “mitigation” means measures

aimed   at   reducing   the   risk,   impact   or

effects   of   a   disaster   or   threatening

disaster situation;”

109. The exercise of powers by the State Disaster

Management Authority or by the State Government which

shall   have   overriding   effect   under   Section   72   are

those exercise of jurisdiction which are within the

four corners of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

When   the   State   Disaster   Management   Authority   and

State Government take a decision that for mitigation

or prevention of disaster it is not possible to hold

physical examination in the State, the said decision

was within the four corners of Disaster Management

Act,   2005.   However,   the   decision   of   the   Disaster

151

Management   Authority   or   the   State   Government   that

students should be promoted without appearing in the

final   year/terminal   semester   examination,   is   not

within   the   domain   of   the   Disaster   Management   Act,

2005.   The   decision   to   promote   students   and   grant

Degree   by   a   State   if   contrary   to   any   Central

enactment or guidelines issued thereunder the Central

enactment  and  the  guidelines  thereunder shall  have

precedence by virtue of the same being referable to

Entry 66 List I. We, thus, conclude that the State

Disaster   Management   Authority   and   the   State

Government   has   no   jurisdiction   to   take   a   decision

that the students of final year/terminal examination

should   be   promoted   on   the   basis   of   earlier   years

assessment  and  internal assessment  whereas  the  UGC

guidelines dated 06.07.2020 directed specifically to

conduct final year/terminal semester examination. The

UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 in the above respect

shall override  the decision of the State Government

and the State Disaster Management Authority regarding

152

promoting the students, does not   fall within the

jurisdiction of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and

shall   have   no   protection   of   Section   72   of   the

Disaster   Management   Act,   2005.   We,   thus,   conclude

that   the   State   or   the   State   Disaster   Management

Authority   have   no   jurisdiction   under   Disaster

Management   Act,   2005   to   take   a     decision   for

promoting   the   students   on   the   basis   of   previous

performance   or   internal   assessment   which   decision

being   contrary   to   revised   guidelines   of   the

University Grants Commission cannot be upheld and has

to give way to the guidelines of UGC which is the

Authority to issue guidelines for determination and

maintenance of standards of education and teaching of

the Universities. 

110. From the aforesaid discussion, we arrive at the

following conclusions:

153

Conclusions:

(1)The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued by

the UGC are not beyond the domain of the UGC and they

relate to coordination and determination of standards

in institutions of higher education.

(2)The   Guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   are   in

continuation   to   the   earlier   Guidelines   dated

29.04.2020   and   are   not   contrary   to   the   earlier

Guidelines.   We have to look into the substance of

the Guidelines to find out the intention and object

of the Guidelines.   The Guidelines were issued with

the   object   that   a   uniform   academic   calendar   be

followed by all the Universities and final /terminal

examinations be held.

(3)The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has to be treated

to   have   been   issued   in   exercise   of   the   statutory

powers vested in the Commission under Section 12.  As

per   the   Statutory   Regulations,   2003,   it   is   the

154

statutory   duty   of   the   Universities   to   adopt   the

Guidelines issued by the UGC.   The Guidelines dated

06.07.2020 cannot be ignored by terming it as non­

statutory or advisory.

(4)  The   differentiation   made   in   the   Revised

Guidelines   to   hold   final   or   terminal   semester

examination   and   to   give   option   for   earlier

years/intermediate   semester   for   not   holding   the

examination   has   a   rational   basis.     The

differentiation   has   nexus   with   the   object   to   be

achieved.   We, thus,   reject the challenge to the

revised Guidelines on the ground that there is any

discrimination   between   the   students   of   final

year/terminal semester and those of intermediate and

first year.

(5)The revised Guidelines also cannot be termed to

violate Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground

that   one   date,   i.e.,   30.09.2020   has   been   fixed

irrespective   of   the   conditions   prevailing   in

155

individual   States.   The   date   for   completion   of

examination   was   fixed   throughout   the   country   to

maintain uniformity in the academic calendar.

(6)The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 as well

as   Standard   Operating   Procedures   for   conduct   of

examinations circulated vide letter dated 08.07.2020

of UGC as well as O.M. dated 06.07.2020 issued by

MHRD clearly shows deep concern with the health of

all stakeholders, i.e., students as well as the exam

functionaries.   Challenge   to   the   Guidelines   on   the

ground   of   it   being   violative   of   Article   21   is

repelled.

(7)   The expression “other bodies” used in opening

part of the Section 12 of the UGC Act, 1956 is in

reference to other bodies apart from Universities as

enumerated   under   Section   12.     The   submission   that

other   bodies   as   occurring   in   Section   12   should

include State Disaster Management Authority or health

experts   is   misconceived.   Section   12   never

156

contemplated   any   such   expression.   The   revised

guidelines   dated   06.07.2020   are   not   in   breach   of

Section 12 of 1956 Act.

(8)The Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers the

State Disaster Management Authority as well as the

State Government to take measures for prevention and

mitigation of a disaster and the action taken by the

authorities under  the  Disaster  Management  Act  have

been given overriding effect to achieve the purpose

and object of the Act, 2005.   Saving of human life

has been given paramount importance under the Act,

2005.   Primacy   have   been   given   to   the   actions   and

measures   taken   under   the   Act,   2005   over   anything

inconsistent in any other law for the time being in

force.

(9)The direction of the University Grants Commission

in Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 insofar as it

directs the Universities and Colleges to complete the

final   year/terminal   year   examination   by   30.09.2020

157

shall be overridden by any contrary decision taken by

the State Disaster Management Authority or the State

Government   exercising   power   under   the   Disaster

Management Act, 2005.

(10)The   State   Governments   or   State   Disaster

Management   Authority   in   exercise   of   power   under

Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to

take   a   decision   that   the   students   of   final

year/terminal   students   should   be   promoted   on   the

basis   of   earlier   year   assessment   and   internal

assessment,   which   decision   being   contrary   to   UGC

Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has to give way to the

UGC Guidelines.  The UGC Guidelines dated 06.07.2020

specifically   directed   to   conduct   the   final   year/

terminal   semester   examination   which   shall   override

such   contrary   decision   of   the   State   Government   or

SDMA.

158

111.   In   view   of   our   foregoing   discussion   and

conclusion, this batch of cases is disposed of in the

following manner:

(1)The prayer to quash the revised guidelines

dated 06.07.2020 issued by the University Grants

Commission and OM dated 06.07.2020 issued by the

Ministry of Human Resource Development and letter

dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs is refused.

(2)The   decision   taken   by   the   State   Disaster

Management   Authority/State   not   to   hold   final

year/terminal semester examination by 30.09.2020

in exercise of power under Disaster Management

Act, 2005 shall prevail over deadline fixed by

the University Grants Commission i.e. 30.09.2020

in respect to the concerned State.

159

(3)   The   decision   of   the   State/State   Disaster

Management Authority to promote the students in

the final year/terminal semester on the basis of

previous   performance   and   internal   assessment

being   beyond   the   jurisdiction   of   Disaster

Management   Act,   2005   has   to   give   way   to   the

guidelines of UGC dated 06.07.2020 directing to

hold examination of final year/terminal semester.

The   State   and   University   cannot   promote   the

students   in   the   final   year/terminal   semester

without holding final year/terminal examination. 

(4)If any State/Union Territory in exercise of

jurisdiction under Disaster Management Act, 2005

has taken a decision that it is not possible to

conduct   the   final   year/terminal   semester

examination by 30.09.2020, we grant liberty to

such State/Union Territory to make an application

to the University Grants Commission for extending

deadline   of   30.09.2020   for   that   State/Union

160

Territory which shall be considered by UGC and

rescheduled   date   be   communicated   to   such

State/Union Territory at the earliest. 

112. All writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

The   Special   Leave   Petition   No.10042   of   2020   is

dismissed.

.....................J.

                                 ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.

                                ( R. SUBHASH REDDY )

......................J.

                                   ( M.R. SHAH )

New Delhi,

August 28, 2020.