LEGAL ISSUE: The extent of the State Government’s role in granting affiliation to technical institutions for new courses after approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Technical Education Affiliation.
Case Name: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Crescent Educational Society & Ors.
Judgment Date: 18 November 2021
Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 727
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud J. and A.S. Bopanna J.
Can a university insist on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government before granting affiliation to technical institutions for new courses, even after the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has approved them? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the interplay between central and state regulations in technical education. The Court examined the regulations of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) and the role of the State Government in the affiliation process, ultimately setting aside an interim order of the High Court.
Case Background
Several educational institutions sought approval from AICTE to introduce new courses or increase intake in existing engineering programs, particularly in “emerging areas.” After receiving AICTE’s approval, these institutions approached Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) for affiliation. JNTU, however, required these institutions to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government before granting affiliation. This requirement was based on JNTU regulations that mandate State Government approval for new courses or increased intake.
JNTU communicated this requirement to the Commissioner for Technical Education on September 8, 2021, seeking State Government approval for granting affiliation to new courses and increased intake for the academic year 2021-22. The Commissioner, in turn, requested the Higher Education Department to examine the institutions’ requests on September 11, 2021.
Aggrieved by the requirement of obtaining an NOC from the State Government, the educational institutions filed petitions in the High Court of Telangana. They contended that once AICTE had granted approval, JNTU could not make affiliation conditional on the State Government’s NOC.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 8, 2021 | JNTU seeks State Government approval for new courses/increased intake. |
| September 11, 2021 | Commissioner of Technical Education requests Government to examine the institutions’ requests. |
| October 5, 2021 | High Court of Telangana issues interim order against JNTU. |
| October 25, 2021 | High Court of Telangana issues interim order against JNTU. |
| October 26, 2021 | High Court of Telangana issues interim order against JNTU. |
| November 1, 2021 | State Government of Telangana grants NOC. |
| November 18, 2021 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Telangana, through interim orders dated October 5, 2021, October 25, 2021, and October 26, 2021, ruled that JNTU’s requirement for State Government approval before granting affiliation was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaya Gokul Education Trust v Commissioner & Secretary to Govt Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another [(2000) 5 SCC 231]. The High Court directed JNTU to include the institutions in the second phase of counseling, allowing students to be admitted to these courses. JNTU then appealed the High Court’s interim orders to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the relevant regulations of JNTU, specifically Regulations 5.5, 5.6, and 6.1, which outline the requirements for affiliation.
- Regulation 5.5: “The existing College / Institute after obtaining approval/awaiting approval from AICTE, has to obtain the requisite permission from the State Government. Later, the College / Institute can apply for affiliation to the University on or before the cut -off date prescribed by the University through online application for the academic year annually. No application for grant of affiliation will be considered after the cut -off date. However, the Grant of Affiliation by the University is subjected to approval from AICTE / PCI / State Government as the case may be.”
- Regulation 5.6: “The permission for establishing Colleges and starting of new programs in the existing Colleges shall be considered by the University as per the priority/ policy of the State Government if any. Hence, the College / Institute shall obtain prior permission from the State Government to start a new Program / College.”
- Regulation 6.1: “The applications for issue of NOC for Increase in Intake/ Closure of Course or College/Institution / Change of Name / Change of Site/Location or any other matter where University NOC is required shall be accompanied by the resolution from Society / Management. Further, for starting a new Course / Increase in intake / Change of Site/Location of the existing College/Institute, prior permission from the State Government is mandatory.”
These regulations mandate that institutions must obtain permission from the State Government before applying for affiliation with JNTU, especially for new programs or increased intake. The Court also considered Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act 1982, which requires permission for opening new courses.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of JNTU:
- JNTU’s regulations explicitly require State Government approval, reflecting the State’s role in ensuring that new courses align with local needs and overall policy.
- The decision in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra) has been distinguished in subsequent judgments, emphasizing the importance of the State’s role in education.
- The High Court should not have directed counseling of students before the State Government’s NOC was granted and the affiliation process was completed.
Arguments on behalf of the Institutions:
- The institutions did not dispute JNTU’s authority to conduct the affiliation process.
- Once AICTE granted approval, JNTU’s insistence on a State Government NOC was contrary to the central legislation governing AICTE.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| JNTU’s Submission: State Government’s Role |
|
| Institutions’ Submission: AICTE Approval Sufficient |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether JNTU could require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government for granting affiliation to technical institutions for new courses, after the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had already granted its approval.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether JNTU can require a State NOC after AICTE approval? | Yes, JNTU can require a State NOC. | JNTU regulations and subsequent Supreme Court decisions emphasize the State’s role in ensuring educational standards and local needs are met. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaya Gokul Education Trust v Commissioner & Secretary to Govt Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another [(2000) 5 SCC 231] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The High Court relied on this case, but the Supreme Court noted it has been distinguished in subsequent rulings. |
| Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and Others [(2019) 17 SCC 729] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Emphasized the State’s role in ensuring educational needs and preventing mushrooming of institutions. |
| A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University and Another v Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 564] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Reiterated the importance of the State and affiliating University’s role, noting that the State can prescribe higher standards than AICTE. |
| Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act 1982 | Telangana Legislature | Considered | Requires permission for opening new courses, supporting the State’s role. |
| JNTU Regulations 5.5, 5.6, and 6.1 | JNTU | Considered | Mandate State Government permission for affiliation, new programs, and increased intake. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| JNTU’s submission that State Government approval is necessary as per regulations. | The Court accepted this submission, emphasizing that JNTU’s regulations and the State’s role are valid. |
| Institutions’ submission that AICTE approval is sufficient. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the State’s role is also crucial for maintaining standards and addressing local needs. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Court distinguished Jaya Gokul Education Trust [(2000) 5 SCC 231]*, noting that subsequent decisions have emphasized the importance of the State’s role.
- The Court followed Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet [(2019) 17 SCC 729]*, which upheld the State’s authority in educational matters.
- The Court followed A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University v Jai Bharath College [(2021) 2 SCC 564]*, which affirmed that the State can set higher standards than AICTE.
- The Court considered Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act 1982 and JNTU Regulations 5.5, 5.6, and 6.1, finding them consistent with the State’s role in education.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining educational standards and addressing the specific needs of the local area. The Court noted that while AICTE approval is necessary, it is not sufficient for granting affiliation. The State Government and the affiliating university also play a crucial role in ensuring that educational institutions meet the required standards and that the courses offered are relevant to the local context. The Court also highlighted the potential harm to students if institutions are allowed to admit students before completing the affiliation process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of State’s role | 40% |
| Maintaining educational standards | 30% |
| Protection of students’ interests | 20% |
| Adherence to JNTU regulations | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal framework and the need to maintain educational standards. The Court emphasized the importance of the State’s role as defined by JNTU regulations and previous Supreme Court decisions. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal considerations played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.
The Court considered the argument that AICTE approval should be sufficient but rejected it based on the importance of the State’s role in ensuring educational standards and local needs are met. The Court also noted that the State Government could prescribe standards higher than those recognized by AICTE.
The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant regulations, previous judgments, and the need to protect students’ interests. The Court set aside the High Court’s interim order, emphasizing that the affiliation process must be completed before institutions can admit students.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The interim direction cannot be sustained.”
“Issuing such a judicial fiat even before the process contemplated by the Regulations is complete is likely to prejudice the students, often, in an irretrievable manner, in the event that the affiliation is eventually denied.”
“Experience indicates that the creation of equities in favour of students leads to serious issues subsequently, when the interim orders of the High Court lead to the admission of the students to an institution which may eventually be denied affiliation.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
- State Governments play a significant role in the affiliation of technical institutions, even after AICTE approval.
- Universities can insist on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government as part of the affiliation process.
- Interim orders that allow admissions before the completion of the affiliation process can be detrimental to students.
- Educational institutions must comply with both AICTE and State Government regulations.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- JNTU must complete the affiliation process within ten days, adhering to its regulations.
- JNTU must file an affidavit before the High Court of Telangana, indicating the outcome of the affiliation process.
- The High Court’s interim direction remains stayed until the affiliation process is complete.
- The High Court is at liberty to issue further directions based on the outcome of the affiliation process.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that State Governments and affiliating universities have a crucial role in the affiliation process of technical institutions, even after AICTE approval. This decision reinforces the principle that while AICTE sets national standards, State Governments can impose additional requirements to ensure that educational institutions meet the specific needs of the local area and maintain quality standards. This decision clarifies the interplay between central and state regulations in the context of technical education. This case also reinforces the position of law that the decision in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra) has been distinguished in subsequent judgments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Crescent Educational Society & Ors. clarifies the essential role of State Governments in the affiliation process for technical institutions. The Court emphasized that while AICTE approval is necessary, it is not sufficient, and State Governments and affiliating universities also play a vital role in maintaining educational standards and addressing local needs. This decision ensures that the affiliation process is thorough and protects the interests of students.