UGC’s Directive Is Binding | Chhattisgarh HC Slams University for Defying Central Law on College Autonomy | Acts of Omission and Commission Cannot Override Statutory Mandate
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad directed the affiliating University to comply with the binding mandate issued by the University Grants Commission and notify the conferment of autonomous status upon the concerned College. The Court held that once the University Grants Commission confers such status under its 2023 Regulations, the affiliating University is bound to issue the necessary notification within thirty days. The Court rejected the University’s claim that such Regulations are non-binding unless formally adopted and directed immediate compliance with the UGC’s directives.
The controversy involved two interconnected writ petitions concerning the conferment of autonomous status to a College affiliated with a State University. The first petition was instituted by a College and its Principal seeking the issuance of a writ mandating the University to notify its autonomous status in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023. The second petition, filed by the University, challenged the letter dated 19.01.2024 issued by the UGC directing the University to notify the autonomous status of the College.
The petitioners in the first case, being the College and its Principal, submitted that despite a formal direction issued by the UGC, the University failed to comply with Regulation 7.2 of the 2023 Regulations which mandates the parent University to issue notification regarding autonomous status within thirty days from the UGC’s communication. According to the petitioners, multiple representations were made requesting compliance, but the University remained non-responsive, resulting in administrative hurdles and unrest among students. The petition sought a mandamus directing the University to notify the status or alternatively, to decide the representation within a timeframe.
In contrast, the University, in its petition, contended that the UGC lacked the authority to compel issuance of such a notification. It submitted that the College failed to comply with University Statutes Nos. 27 and 28 governing affiliation and service matters, and had deliberately bypassed the University by applying directly to the UGC for autonomous status. The University stated that the College withheld material facts and failed to respond to an information requisition dated 09.06.2023. Further, it argued that no NOC or recommendation was given for the autonomous status and that the UGC acted unilaterally in issuing its communication of 19.01.2024.
The University held that it had not adopted the 2023 UGC Regulations and was governed by the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. As per the University, any conferment of autonomy without its approval violated State legislation. It submitted that the College had committed regulatory breaches, including unauthorized admissions to professional courses such as BBA, without prior sanction. It also claimed that faculty appointments were being made in violation of University statutes and that multiple legal disputes had arisen from the College's non-compliance.
The UGC, in its submission, maintained that the 2023 Regulations were binding and framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956. It informed the Court that the College’s application for autonomy was placed before multiple Standing Committee meetings. Due to the University's failure to respond within the mandated 30-day period, the Commission, in its meeting held on 16.01.2024, approved the conferment of autonomous status for the period 2024-25 to 2033-34. A letter to that effect was issued on 19.01.2024.
According to the UGC, the University was granted ample opportunity to raise objections via the online portal but chose not to respond. The UGC contended that the absence of objection amounted to deemed approval under Regulation 7.2. Further, the Commission had addressed the University’s subsequent objections through a clarificatory communication dated 15.03.2024. It maintained that the Regulations were applicable across all Universities and the parent University was obliged to comply.
The Court recorded that Regulation 4.2 of the 2023 Regulations mandates the parent University to issue a notification within thirty days once autonomous status is conferred by the UGC. It noted that: "The respondent-University is bound to issue notification within thirty days for a College to function as an autonomous entity once the autonomous status is conferred on the College by the UGC."
The Court rejected the University’s claim that the Regulations were inapplicable in absence of formal adoption: "The sole ground which has to be considered by this Court is that since the respondent-University has not adopted the Regulations of 2023... it is not bound to follow the Regulations of 2023."
The Court further referred to the affidavit filed by the Assistant Registrar of the University wherein it was affirmed that: "UGC Regulation is not Binding on the State University- Affiliated Institution without adoption."
Addressing this position, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Annamalai University: "The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open... Regulations framed by it... apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities."
It also cited University of Delhi v. Raj Singh where it was held: "By reason of entry 66, Parliament was invested with the power to legislate on coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education..."
Referring to Article 251 of the Constitution, the Court observed: "If any provision of law made by the legislature of the State is repugnant to any provision of law made by the Parliament... the law made by the Parliament... shall prevail."
Accordingly, the Court recorded: "The Act of 1956 has been enacted by the Parliament... With such aims and objects, the Regulations of 2023 has been framed."
On the UGC's authority, the Court held: "Section 26 of the Act of 1956 confers power on the respondent No.3 to make regulations... consistent with the Act..."
It concluded that the University was under statutory obligation to comply and issue the notification, and the absence of adoption did not exempt it from this requirement.
The Court issued the following direction:
"Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) No. 4092 of 2024 filed by D.P. Vipra College is allowed with the following directions. Respondent No.1-University is directed to issue necessary notification regarding autonomous status of the petitioner-College in accordance with University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023, particularly Regulation 4.2, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
Regarding the University's challenge, the Court held:"Writ Petition (C) No. 778 of 2025 filed by Atal Vihari Bajpayee University is dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. M.L. Sakat, Mr. Raza Ali and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Choubey and Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocates for University; Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate for UGC
Case Title: D.P. Vipra College & Anr. v. Atal Vihari Bajpayee University & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:21314
Case Number: WPC No. 4092 of 2024 and WPC No. 778 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
[Read/Download order]
