Admission Processes in Deemed-to-be Universities in India: Constitutional and Statutory Perspectives

Admission Processes in Deemed-to-be Universities in India: Constitutional and Statutory Perspectives

Introduction

“Deemed-to-be Universities” occupy a unique niche within India’s higher-education architecture. Created under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (“UGC Act”), these institutions enjoy academic autonomy comparable to full-fledged universities, yet remain subject to a dense network of constitutional norms, parliamentary legislation and regulatory guidelines. The most contentious aspect of this regime is the control of admissions, where the imperatives of merit, transparency and social justice collide with institutional freedom and minority rights. This article critically analyses the evolving jurisprudence governing admissions in deemed-to-be universities, drawing on leading Supreme Court and High Court authorities as well as pertinent statutory provisions.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

1. Constitutional Entries and Fundamental Rights

  • Entry 66, List I (Union List) empowers Parliament to legislate on the “coordination and determination of standards” in higher education, a field held to encompass the entire gamut of admission regulation.[1]
  • Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, which courts have extended to include establishing and administering educational institutions; reasonable restrictions may be imposed under Article 19(6).[2]
  • Articles 29(2) and 30(1) protect, respectively, the non-discriminatory access to state-aided institutions and the special rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, creating a delicate balance in admission policies.[3]

2. UGC Act, 1956

  • Section 3 authorises the Central Government, on UGC’s advice, to declare an institution as a “deemed-to-be university”.[4]
  • Section 14 empowers UGC to withhold grants for non-compliance with its recommendations.
  • Section 22 reserves the right to confer degrees to universities established by law or deemed-to-be universities.
  • Section 23 restrains institutions other than universities from using the word “university”, a mandate reinforced judicially.[5]

3. AICTE Act, 1987 and Other Sectoral Statutes

Where professional or technical courses are involved, additional regulatory layers arise—most notably the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) Act, 1987 (see Section 10(k) on approval of new institutions/courses)[6], the Medical Council of India regulations and analogous bodies for dentistry, nursing, etc. The intersection between UGC’s overarching mandate and sector-specific councils is a recurring theme in admission litigation.

Jurisprudential Evolution on Admission Control

1. Foundational Trilogy: T.M.A. Pai, Islamic Academy, P.A. Inamdar

The eleven-judge decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka recognised the right of minority and non-minority unaided institutions to administer admissions, while affirming the State’s power to impose reasonable regulations to preserve educational standards.[3] Two follow-up Constitution Bench decisions refined the doctrine:

  • Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka mandated setting up state-level committees to oversee admissions and fees, emphasising merit-based selection and prohibition of capitation.[7]
  • P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra upheld these committees, clarified the upper limits of State interference and declared that reservation policies cannot be foisted on unaided institutions, although transparent admission procedures remain compulsory.[8]

2. Admissions in Deemed-to-be Universities

In Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court held that, because admission standards directly implicate “coordination and determination of standards” under Entry 66, State legislation purporting to regulate admissions in deemed universities is ultra vires.[9] The Bombay High Court has repeatedly applied this ratio, stressing that admissions “have to be made under the control of UGC.”[10]

Subsequently, Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE confirmed that even private deemed institutions must comply with AICTE’s admission calendar and approval process where technical courses are concerned, underscoring the supremacy of central regulations over divergent state directives.[11]

3. Common Entrance Tests (CETs) and NEET Controversy

The legitimacy of imposing a single national entrance examination reached its zenith in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, wherein the Court quashed the Medical Council of India’s NEET regulations as being ultra vires the parent statutes and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 30.[12] However, the later decision in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh upheld a state-conducted CET and fee-fixation mechanism, applying the doctrine of proportionality and emphasising public interest in curbing malpractices.[13] The apparent tension is reconciled on the basis that Christian Medical College turned on excessive delegation and minority autonomy, whereas Modern Dental College concerned non-minority institutions and a state statute specifically authorised by Entry 25 (List III) read with the permissive zone carved out in P.A. Inamdar.

4. Meritocracy and Reservation

While deemed universities generally resist state-imposed quotas, the Supreme Court has insisted that merit remains the lodestar of admission policies. In Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. the Court struck down excessive relaxation of qualifying marks for reserved categories in postgraduate medical admissions, emphasising that affirmative action cannot erode academic standards.[14] Earlier, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab invalidated “staff-quota” reservations, reiterating the requirement of merit-based selection even within deemed universities.[15]

Regulatory Instruments and Administrative Guidelines

1. UGC Guidelines on Admissions

Successive UGC guidelines—1992, 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2016—stress all-India merit-based common entrance tests, transparent counselling and prohibition of capitation. The Delhi High Court in Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences v. UGC recognised that deemed universities enjoy curricular autonomy, yet affirmed UGC’s authority to insist on prior approval for new departments and off-campus centres.[16] The Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro directed UGC to enforce Section 23 by restraining deemed universities from using the word “university” and mandated strict prior approval for off-campus programmes.[5]

2. Distance Education and Off-Campus Admissions

High Courts have invalidated ex-post-facto approvals granted by the Distance Education Council, holding that such retroactive validations cannot cure fundamental statutory breaches (Pillarisetty Kanthi v. IASE Deemed University). Similarly, Lohade Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan emphasised that deemed status is confined to “higher education”; indiscriminate expansion without UGC approval is impermissible.[17]

3. Student-Centric Norms: Refunds and Retention of Certificates

UGC’s 2007/2016 circulars prohibit institutions from retaining original certificates and mandate near-full refund of fees upon withdrawal. The Madras High Court has enforced these directions against deemed universities, treating them as binding regulatory conditions.[18]

Critical Issues and Emerging Trends

  • Reconciling Minority Autonomy with National Entrance Tests: The legislative response to Christian Medical College—namely statutory amendments empowering National Medical Commission and National Testing Agency—will determine the future contours of compulsory CETs.
  • Overlap of Regulatory Jurisdictions: Persistent friction between UGC, AICTE and professional councils necessitates a harmonised oversight mechanism, as envisaged by the Supreme Court-appointed expert committee in Orissa Lift Irrigation.
  • Digital and Distance Learning: Post-pandemic expansion raises fresh questions regarding the admissibility of online credentials for further studies and employment, highlighting the need for a coherent approval protocol.
  • Reservation Policies in Deemed Universities: Parliament’s recent extension of OBC/EWS quotas in centrally funded institutions may revive debates on the applicability of similar mandates to privately managed deemed universities.

Conclusion

The jurisprudence on admissions to deemed-to-be universities reflects a continual quest to balance institutional autonomy with the constitutional mandate of equality and excellence. While Entry 66 and the UGC Act vest the Union with decisive authority over admission standards, courts have carved out space for reasonable state regulation and minority rights, provided such measures are proportionate and non-exploitative. Future reforms must clarify regulatory overlaps, institutionalise transparent CET frameworks and uphold student-centric safeguards, thereby ensuring that deemed-to-be universities contribute meaningfully to India’s higher-education landscape without compromising on merit or constitutional values.

Footnotes

  1. Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 11 SCC 755; see also Gujarat University v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703.
  2. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353.
  3. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
  4. University Grants Commission Act, 1956, s. 3.
  5. Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468.
  6. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, s. 10(k); affirmed in Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE, (2013) 3 SCC 385.
  7. Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697.
  8. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537.
  9. Bharati Vidyapeeth, supra note 1.
  10. 403 B v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 403 B.
  11. Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE, supra note 6.
  12. Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 305.
  13. Modern Dental College, supra note 2.
  14. Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120.
  15. Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology v. State of Punjab, (1997) 2 SCC 65.
  16. Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences v. UGC, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13641.
  17. Lohade Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2592; Pillarisetty Kanthi v. IASE Deemed University, 2009 SCC OnLine AP 131.
  18. Major K. Kamalanathan v. Secretary, SRM University, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 12836.