The Appellation 'University' in Indian Law

The Appellation 'University' in Indian Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of its Regulated Use

Introduction

The term 'University' connotes an institution of higher learning, research, and academic excellence, holding significant prestige and societal trust. In India, the use of this appellation is not merely a matter of nomenclature but is strictly regulated by law to maintain educational standards, prevent deception of students, and ensure the credibility of degrees conferred. The University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, stands as the cornerstone of this regulatory framework, particularly through its provisions defining what constitutes a university and restricting the use of the word 'University' by unauthorized entities. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the legal landscape governing the use of the word 'University' in India, examining statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and the underlying legislative intent.

Defining "University": Historical and Legal Perspectives

The concept of a 'university' has evolved historically and has been subject to various definitions. Traditionally, a university is perceived as a community of scholars and students dedicated to higher learning and research. The Supreme Court of India in State Of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah[6][7], referred to multiple definitions, including Tomlin's Law Dictionary, which describes a university as "A place where all kinds of literature are universally taught." Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition) was also cited, stating: "The essential feature of a university seems to be that it was incorporated as such by the sovereign power. Other attributes of a university appear to be the admission of students from all parts of the world, a plurality of masters, the teaching of one at least of the higher faculties... and the right to confer degrees..."[6]

The Allahabad High Court in Dhanpal And Others Petitioners v. State Of U.P And Others S[8] reiterated similar characteristics, emphasizing incorporation by sovereign power and the ability to confer degrees. These definitions underscore that a university is not merely an educational institution but one that possesses specific attributes, including formal recognition and the authority to grant degrees, typically conferred by a legislative act or charter.

Statutory Framework: The University Grants Commission Act, 1956

The UGC Act, 1956, was enacted "to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission."[16] Several sections of this Act are pivotal to understanding the regulation of the term 'University'.

Section 2(f): Definition of University

Section 2(f) of the UGC Act defines a 'University' as "a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act."[16] This definition forms the bedrock for identifying institutions legally entitled to be called universities.

Section 3: Deemed to be University

Section 3 of the UGC Act empowers the Central Government, on the advice of the UGC, to declare any institution for higher education, other than a University, to be "deemed to be a University" for the purposes of the Act. Such institutions are then subject to all provisions of the UGC Act as if they were universities within the meaning of Section 2(f).[13] The implications of this status on the use of the word 'University' in their name has been a subject of considerable judicial scrutiny.

Section 22: Right to Confer Degrees

Section 22(1) stipulates that the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3, or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.[16] Section 22(2) prohibits any other person or authority from conferring or granting degrees. This provision links the authority to confer degrees directly with the recognized status of a university.

Section 23: Prohibition of the use of the word ‘University’

Section 23 of the UGC Act is the most direct provision regulating the use of the term. It states: "No institution, whether a corporate body or not, other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees, shall be entitled to have the word ‘University’ associated with its name in any manner whatsoever."[16] A proviso initially allowed a two-year grace period for institutions existing at the commencement of the Act.[14]

The Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha And Another v. Union Of India[15] noted that before the UGC Act, 1956, there was no prohibition against establishing universities by private individuals or bodies, though the government was not bound to recognize their degrees. Section 23, along with Section 22, fundamentally changed this landscape by restricting both the conferment of degrees and the use of the word 'University'.

Judicial Interpretation of Section 23 and the Use of "University"

The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing Section 23, clarifying its scope and addressing attempts to circumvent its provisions.

Early Interpretations and Prohibitions

In Prem Chand Jain And Another v. R.K Chhabra[14], the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of individuals associated with an entity incorporated under the Companies Act that used the word 'University' in its name. The Court emphasized that the mischief Section 23 sought to eradicate was the unauthorized use of the word 'University' by institutions that were not established or recognized as per the UGC Act. The Court observed, "Several institutions styling themselves as “universities” had started awarding degrees and diplomas which had no basis and could not be accepted. Keeping in view the mischief which was sought to be eradicated... it must be held that the Act recognises only those institutions established or incorporated under special statutes of sovereign Legislatures."[9] This sentiment was echoed in J.K Soni Petitioner v. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi[9], which dismissed a petition challenging prosecution under Section 23.

The Calcutta High Court in SETHIA OIL INDISTRIES LIMITED AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.[20], referencing Prem Chand Jain, reiterated that Parliament, while legislating under Entry 66 of List I, considered it necessary as a regulatory measure to prohibit the unauthorized use of the word 'university'.

Deemed Universities and the "University" Appellation

The status of "Deemed to be Universities" under Section 3 of the UGC Act and their entitlement to use the word 'University' in their names has been a contentious issue. While Section 23 itself includes institutions deemed to be universities under Section 3 as exceptions to the prohibition, the manner of usage has been debated.

The Karnataka High Court in Manipal University, Udupi v. Union Of India[13] argued that by virtue of the legal fiction created by Section 3, a Deemed University should be treated as a University for all purposes of the Act, including the entitlement to use the word "University" in its name. The court reasoned that "The absence of a specific reference to a deemed to be University, under Section 23, is therefore not material, it would by virtue of the language of Section 3 be implied that a Deemed University is excepted... from the rigour of Section 23."[13]

However, the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.[1] took a more restrictive view. While primarily dealing with the validity of engineering degrees awarded through distance education by deemed universities without AICTE approval, the Court issued a significant directive: "The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word 'University' within one month from today."[1][11] This directive was reiterated by the Madras High Court in M.Saravanakumar v. 1.The Chairman[11], which cited the Supreme Court's order. This suggests that while such institutions are "deemed to be universities" for functional and regulatory purposes under the Act, they may not be permitted to use "University" as part of their primary name, perhaps to maintain a distinction from universities directly established by legislation. The common practice now is for such institutions to use the phrase "Deemed to be University" explicitly in their communications and official name.

Private Universities and Regulatory Oversight

The establishment of private universities is typically governed by separate State Acts. In University Grants Commission v. Amity University, Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[10], the Delhi High Court referred to UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, which stipulate under Regulation 3.1: "Each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time-to-time." Such universities, being established under a State Act, fall within the category of institutions permitted to use the word 'University' under Section 23 of the UGC Act.

However, the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal And Another v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others[3][16] struck down the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002, which allowed the establishment of private universities by mere gazette notification. The Court held this to be ultra vires the Constitution, emphasizing that establishing a university requires adherence to proper legislative procedures and standards, and cannot be a mere formality. The Court noted that the term 'university' implies certain essential attributes like infrastructure, qualified faculty, and the capacity to confer recognized degrees, which were lacking in the "universities" established under the impugned Chhattisgarh Act. This judgment underscores that even if a State legislates to establish a university, such legislation must be robust and ensure compliance with national standards coordinated by the UGC, reinforcing the sanctity of the 'University' title.

The Interplay of Central and State Legislation

The power to legislate on education is divided between the Union and the States. Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution gives Parliament exclusive power to legislate on "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."[3][12] Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) pertains to "Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I..."

The Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal[3][12] extensively discussed this interplay, affirming that while States can legislate to establish universities (traditionally under Entry 32 of List II, now covered by Entry 25 of List III), this power is subject to the Union's power under Entry 66 of List I. The UGC Act, including Section 23, is a manifestation of Parliament's power under Entry 66. Therefore, State laws establishing universities must be consistent with the standards and regulatory framework set by the UGC Act. This constitutional scheme ensures that the appellation 'University' is associated only with institutions that meet nationally determined standards.

The case of Bharathidasan University And Another v. All-India Council For Technical Education And Others[2], while dealing with AICTE approval for university courses, also touched upon university autonomy. It clarified that universities established under a State Act are distinct from "technical institutions" as defined in the AICTE Act. This distinction is relevant as it reinforces the primary regulatory role of the UGC concerning universities and their nomenclature.

Conclusion

The use of the word 'University' in India is meticulously regulated, primarily through Section 23 of the UGC Act, 1956. This provision, supported by a series of judicial pronouncements, aims to preserve the integrity and standard of higher education by ensuring that only legitimately established and recognized institutions can associate this prestigious term with their names. Universities established by Central, Provincial, or State Acts, and institutions specially empowered by Parliament, are clearly entitled to use the word. For "Deemed to be Universities," while they function as universities for the purposes of the UGC Act, the Supreme Court's directive in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd.[1] indicates a restriction on their use of 'University' as part of their principal name, mandating clarity in their status. The overarching principle, as reinforced in Prof. Yashpal[3], is that the title 'University' must correspond to substantive quality, proper legislative establishment, and adherence to national standards coordinated by the UGC. This regulatory vigilance is essential to safeguard student interests and uphold the credibility of Indian higher education on a global stage.

References