Universities can launch technical courses without AICTE approval: Supreme Court's Landmark judgement The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not obligatory for a university, created under an Act of a competent legislature, to seek and secure prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. Delivering the judgment Mr. Justic S. Rajendra Babu, upheld plea of the Bharathidasan University to commence courses in technology such as information technology & management, bio-engineering & technology, petrochemical engineering & technology, pharmaceutical engineering and technology, etc. without securing the prior approval of the AICTE. The bench which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju set aside the verdict of the Madras High Court (HC) - which had held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant-university to secure prior approval of the AICTE to commence the specified technical courses. Allowing an appeal from the appellant-university against the judgment of the HC, the Bench dismissed a writ petition from AICTE which contended that the appellant-university did not secure its (AICTE's) prior approval for commencing the said technical courses, as obligated under statutory regulations made under the AICTE Act, 1987. (The HC's impugned verdict was given on a writ petition from AICTE against the university in this regard.) AICTE nod not obligatory: SC: The Hindu By T. Padmanabha Rao NEW DELHI, SEPT. 24. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not obligatory for a university, created under an Act of a competent legislature, to seek and secure prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, upheld a plea of the Bharathidasan University (appellant) to commence courses in technology such as information technology & management, bio-engineering & technology, petrochemical engineering & technology, pharmaceutical engineering and technology etc. without securing the prior approval of the AICTE. The Bench which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju set aside the verdict of the Madras High Court (HC) - which held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant-university to secure prior approval of the AICTE to commence the specified technical courses. Allowing an appeal from the appellant-university against the judgment of the HC, the Bench dismissed a writ petition from AICTE which contended that the appellant-university did not secure its (AICTE's) prior approval for commencing the said technical courses, as obligated under statutory regulations made under the AICTE Act, 1987. (The HC's impugned verdict was given on a writ petition from AICTE against the university in this regard). The Bench, on close analysis of the relevant provisions of the AICTE Act 1987, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, pointed out that ``the clear intention of the legislature (in enacting the AICTE Act) is not that `all institutions' whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as `technical institutions' covered by the (AICTE) Act.'' ``If that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of `technical institution' by not excluding `university' from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words `technical institutions' and university in several provisions in the Act,'' the Bench said. ``The definition of `technical institution' excludes from its purview a `university','' and ``when by definition a `university' is excluded from a `technical institution', to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression `technical institution' occurs will include a `university' will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein,'' the Bench observed. ``The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a `university' but only a `technical institution','' the Bench added. ``If Section 10 (k) does not cover a `university' but only a `technical institution', a `regulation' cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of `technical institution' to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a `university' and a `technical institution','' the Bench noted. The Bench placed on record a statement of the appellant- university that the challenge with reference to the `regulation' in question and claim of the AICTE that the appellant-university - should seek and obtain prior approval of the AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education - does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards.'' The HC in rendering its impugned judgment relied on a full bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh HC in `Sambasiva Rao's case' (1997) which held that - anybody or everyone of the authorities and institutions concerned with a `technical education' all over the country would fall within the meaning of ``technical institution'' as defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and, therefore, be bound by the authority of the AICTE under the AICTE Act and the regulations thereunder. ``The decision of the A.P. HC in `Sambasiva Rao's case' cannot also be considered to lay down the correct position of law, as declared by us (apex court),'' the Bench held.
II.4 Bharatidasan University V. All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE)
In this case the petitioner challenged the AICTE Regulation seeking prior approval of starting courses and programmes in technical education under the university. The court observed that the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to, or supervise and control, the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of the departments or units.
The AICTE Act and UGC Act reveal that these bodies are advisory, recommendatory and guiding in nature for maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not authorities empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by them.25
The court discussed the powers of the regulatory authorities especially the AICTE and held that “the Regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it cannot be enforced against or bind a university in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its
departments and constituent institutions.”
The court made it clear that each university need not go to the AICTE for approval before starting any courses. The duty of the regulatory authorities is to maintain the standard in the areas specified to them and not the powers of sanctions.
Bharathidasan University V. All India Council for Technical Education AIR 2001 SC 2867.
II.4 Bharatidasan University V. All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE)
In this case the petitioner challenged the AICTE Regulation seeking prior approval of starting courses and programmes in technical education under the university. The court observed that the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to, or supervise and control, the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of the departments or units.
The AICTE Act and UGC Act reveal that these bodies are advisory, recommendatory and guiding in nature for maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not authorities empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by them.25
The court discussed the powers of the regulatory authorities especially the AICTE and held that “the Regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it cannot be enforced against or bind a university in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its
departments and constituent institutions.”
The court made it clear that each university need not go to the AICTE for approval before starting any courses. The duty of the regulatory authorities is to maintain the standard in the areas specified to them and not the powers of sanctions.
Bharathidasan University V. All India Council for Technical Education AIR 2001 SC 2867.