Delhi High Court | UGC Cannot Debar Universities From Enrolling Ph.D. Scholars Under UGC Act, 1956 or Its Regulations
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan has quashed the University Grants Commission’s order debarring Singhania University from admitting Ph.D. scholars for five years. The Court held that neither the UGC Act, 1956 nor its regulations confer authority on the Commission to impose such a penalty, noting that statutory bodies cannot act beyond their express legislative mandate. The case centered on alleged violations of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, but the Court concluded that the UGC’s directive was ultra vires and therefore unenforceable.
The case arose from a petition filed by Singhania University challenging an order dated 16 January 2025 issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). By this order, the UGC debarred the University from enrolling scholars under its Ph.D. programme for five years, covering the academic years 2025–26 to 2029–30, and directed it to immediately discontinue admitting Ph.D. students. A public notice of the same date advised prospective candidates not to seek admission to the University’s Ph.D. programme.
The University, established under the Singhania University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008, and recognised under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956, stated that it had consistently complied with regulatory requirements and maintained academic and infrastructural standards. It argued that as a statutory university, it was empowered under Section 22 of the UGC Act to award degrees, diplomas, and certificates.
The UGC had issued a show cause notice (SCN) on 23 October 2024 citing complaints of violations of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations of 2009, 2016, and 2022. The SCN referred to findings of a sub-committee which examined data from 2016 to 2020 and recommended that the University should not be allowed to enrol Ph.D. students for five years. The University responded on 7 November 2024, denying the allegations and contending that the SCN violated a stay order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in 2009 restraining coercive action against it.
Singhania University argued before the Delhi High Court that the impugned order was contrary to principles of natural justice because relevant reports relied upon by UGC were not furnished, and no personal hearing was provided. It further contended that the UGC Act, including Sections 12, 12A, 14, and 22, did not confer power on the Commission to impose such a penalty, and that UGC’s action was ultra vires. The University also relied on the interim order of the Rajasthan High Court to claim protection from coercive measures.
The UGC submitted that it acted to maintain standards of higher education as required under the Act, and pointed to contraventions of the 2016 Ph.D. Regulations, particularly the admission of candidates with less than 55% marks in post-graduation. It stated that such violations adversely affect academic standards. The Commission maintained that multiple opportunities had been given to the University for meetings and submissions, and the impugned order was based on expert evaluation.
Thus, the dispute turned on two principal issues: whether UGC had followed principles of natural justice in passing the order, and whether it possessed statutory authority under the UGC Act or Regulations to debar a university from offering Ph.D. programmes.
On the question of natural justice, the court recorded: “Conspicuously, in the reply or otherwise, the University did not ask for the final report of the sub-committee / expert committee dated 30.08.2024, the minutes of meeting of the Standing Committee held on 10.09.2024 or the minutes of meeting of UGC’s 584th meeting held on 03.10.2024. Further, in view of the aforenoted stand taken by the University in its reply to SCN, non-furnishing of said documents would have made no difference. Furthermore, in the said reply, the breaches and defaults alleged in the report of sub-committee or the minutes of the Standing Committee, were not disputed nor the same were explained.”
The court added: “The law is well settled that mere breach of principles of natural justice is not sufficient, such breach of rules must also entail prejudice.” Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it concluded that absence of oral hearing did not vitiate the process once a show cause notice and opportunity to reply were afforded.
On the second issue of statutory power, the court examined the UGC Act and related Regulations. It observed: “Mr. Sinha has not been able to point out any specific provision under the UGC Act which confers any power upon UGC to impose a penalty of the nature which has been imposed vide impugned order dated 16.01.2025 i.e. debarring the petitioner from enrolling Ph.D. students for the next five years, and perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that there exists none.”
Further, the judgment stated: “Except for limited power found under Section 12A of the UGC Act, which allows initiation of an inquiry only against a college, followed by passing of a prohibitory order with the approval of the central government, no power of debarment as exercised by UGC in the impugned order dated 16.01.2025, can be found under the UGC Act and the Regulations referred to in the SCN and the impugned order.”
The court also noted: “Clearly, there is no provision in the Act, which confers power on the UGC to debar the University from enrolling Ph.D. scholars for alleged non-adherence of its provisions.”
The court observed: “It appears that the said Regulations provide for the minimum standards, as well as, lays down the procedures for award of Ph.D. degree, but the said Regulations neither prescribe any consequence of non-compliance with any of the provisions of said Regulations nor confer any power upon the UGC to debar a University from enrolling Ph.D. students or take any action for alleged non-adherence.”
It stated: “Awarding of penalty in the absence of express provisions in the UGC Act, cannot be justified by way of implication under the broader regulatory functions or powers of the UGC referred to in the preamble or Section 12(j) of the UGC Act.”
The High Court held: “In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 being outside the purview of the statute and the statutory Regulations invoked, is a nullity and liable to be set aside.”
“In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 as well as impugned public notice dated 16.01.2025, are quashed and set aside. The petition alongwith pending application, if any, is disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aslam Ahmed, Mr. Ravi Singhania, Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Shabies A. Nabi, Ms. Mishika Bajpai and Mr. Harilal. S., Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Advs. for UGC.
Case Title: Singhania University v. University Grants Commission
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8102
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2390/2025
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
