APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY vs. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4016 OF 2020             (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11482 OF 2020) APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL  UNIVERSITY & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT  AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.    ….RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Madhu Bala Date: 2020.12.10 16:19:51 IST Reason: 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to   reconsider   the   application   for   affiliation   of   a   new   B.Tech course,   submitted   by   the   first   respondent,   which   is   a   self­ financing Engineering College, solely on the basis of the extension of   approval   granted   by   the   All   India   Council   for   Technical Education   ( hereinafter   referred   to   as   “AICTE” ),   the   APJ   Abdul Kalam Technological University, which is a State University and its Vice Chancellor have come up with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant­University,   Mr.   S. Krishnamoorthy,   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   first respondent­College,   Ms.   Priyanka   Prakash,   learned   Counsel appearing for the second respondent­State and Mr. Anil Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent­AICTE. We have   also   heard   Mr.   C.   Arayama   Sundaram,   Mr.   Gopal Sankaranarayanan   and   Mr.   P.S.   Narasimha,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   for   the   applicants   seeking intervention/impleadment and vacation of stay. 4. It appears that despite the mushroom growth of the self­ financing Engineering Institutions in the neighbouring States, the 2 State of Kerala had only 15 Engineering Colleges with an annual intake of only 4844 students till the year 1997. But in the past more than two decades, there was a spurt in the growth of self­ financing Engineering Institutions in the State. The position as on date is that there are 149 Engineering Colleges in the State of Kerala with a total annual permitted intake of 47,420 seats. 5. In   addition,   there   are   also   six   Central   Government Engineering Institutions in the State. 6. Therefore, with a view to regulate technical education in the   State,   the   State   of   Kerala   enacted   the   APJ   Abdul   Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the University   Act”).   Some   of   the   Objects   of   the   University   as indicated in Section 5 of the Act are as follows:­ “xxxx (b)   to   improve   the   academic   standards   of   the   graduate, postgraduate   and   research   programmes   in   engineering sciences, technology and management. (c) to ensure the academic standards of all colleges and institutions affiliated to the University. xxxxx (k) to   substantially   increase   enrolment   in   Postgraduate education   and   research   programmes   in   the   colleges   and 3 institutions with the aim of promoting engineering research, development and innovation; (l) to support the establishment of Centres of excellence for   multidisciplinary   applied   research   in  specific  thematic areas; (m) to   improve   the   learning   skills   of   the   students   by constantly and continuously improving and upgrading the academic quality and standards of faculty; (n) to introduce and sustain innovative systematic quality improvement   programmes   in   the   field   of   technical education.” 7. The   powers   and   functions   of   the   University   enlisted   in Section 8 include the following: “xxxxxxx (iii)   to   lay   down   the   norms   and   standards   for   the establishment,   maintenance,   administration,   supervision and recognition of colleges and centres maintained by the University. (iv) to affiliate to itself institutions as constituent colleges or autonomous colleges or regular colleges or colleges with academic autonomy in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations and to withdraw   affiliation   of   colleges   obtained   in   violation   of Statutes of the University.; (v) to   confer   academic   autonomy   to   affiliated   colleges, institutions   or   a   department   of   the   affiliated   colleges   or institutions or a department maintained by the University. xxxxxxxx (vii) to   hold   examinations   and   to   confer   degrees, postgraduate   degrees,   diplomas,   certificates   and   other academic distinctions to persons who, ­ 4 (a)  shall have pursued a prescribed course of study in the University or any college or institutions thereunder and shall have passed the prescribed examinations of the   University   unless   exempted   therefrom   in   the manner prescribed; or (b) shall have carried on research satisfactorily under conditions as may be prescribed and which has been duly evaluated;  xxxxxxxx (xiv)  to provide for the inspection of affiliated colleges and to issue such directions as the University may deem fit; xxxxxxxx (xviii) to recommend to the Government to take over, in the public interest, the management of colleges or institutions where irregularities or dereliction of criminal nature by the management of such college or institution are   prima facie evident   to   the   committee   of   enquiry   appointed   by   the University.” 8. Sections 60 to 66 provide for affiliation and recognition, procedure for permission, continuation of affiliation, withdrawal of   affiliation   etc.   Section   60   of   the   Act,   which   prescribes   the conditions   subject   to   which   affiliation   can   be   granted   by   the University, reads as follows: 60.   Affiliation   and   recognition. ­   (1)   The   University   can affiliate   any   of   the   Engineering   Colleges   or   Institutions imparting education in technology owned by Government of Kerala or Government controlled societies, Private aided and Private unaided self­financing educational agencies, which, before   the   date   of   commencement   of   this   Act   remained affiliated   to   the   different   Universities,   except   Deemed Universities in the State of Kerala,  provided they meet the criteria   prescribed   under   this   Act,   Ordinances   and 5 Statutes   for   affiliation,   including   but   not   confined   to availability   of   faculty,   administrative   machinery, infrastructure (buildings, laboratories etc.) which will be laid down by the University from time to time under the provisions of this Act . Such colleges meeting the specified criteria   can   be   affiliated   to   the   University   as   (i)   regular colleges   or   (ii)   autonomous   colleges   (iii)   colleges   with academic autonomy or (iv) institutions. The affiliation of such institutions to other Universities in the State except Deemed Universities, shall stand transferred to the University on and from the date of commencement of this Act, subject to the conditions that the affiliation of these colleges or institutions in respect of the students admitted to Engineering courses shall continue till those batches of students complete their courses,   the   examinations   of   all   such   students   shall   be conducted by the Universities to which they were attached, degrees,   postgraduate   degrees   or   diplomas   or   other distinctions shall be awarded by such Universities: Provided   that   the   institutions   in   the   technological branch maintained by other Universities of the State as their departments or their respective constituent colleges or the engineering   colleges   or   teaching   institutions   under   the deemed universities and the National Institutes established by   the   Central   Government   shall   not   come   under   the jurisdiction of the University. (2)  The Educational Agency applying for affiliation or   recognition   and   whose   college   or   institution   has   been granted affiliation or recognition, shall give and comply with the following undertaking:­ (i)  that the provisions of this Act, or any other Acts passed by the State Legislature related to Engineering field in the State, rules made thereunder and Statutes, Ordinances,   Regulations,   standing   orders   and directions of the University shall be observed; (ii)  that there shall be a separate Governing Body or Managing Council for an affiliated college or group of colleges   receiving   financial   assistance   from   the Government or the University; (iii) that the number of students admitted for courses of study shall not exceed the limits prescribed from 6 time   to   time,   by   the   University,   the   Government, Central   or   State   Councils   or   authorities   in   the concerned discipline as the case may be; (iv) that there shall be suitable and adequate physical facilities   such   as   building,   laboratories,   libraries, equipments required for teaching and research, hostel and other infrastructure facilities as the case may be, prescribed by Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations; (v) that   the   financial   resources   of   the   college   or institution shall be such as to make due provision for its continued maintenance and working; (vi) that the strength and qualifications of teaching and non­teaching   staff   of   the   affiliated   colleges   and   the emoluments and the terms and conditions of service of the staff of affiliated colleges shall be such as may be prescribed   by   the   University   and   which   shall   be sufficient to make due provision for courses of study, teaching or training or research, efficiently; (vii) that the services of all teaching and non­teaching employees   and   the   facilities   of   the   college   to   be affiliated   shall   be   made   available   for   conducting examinations and for promoting other activities of the University; (viii)   that   the   directions   and   orders   issued   by   the Chancellor, Vice­Chancellor and other officers of the University in exercise of the powers conferred on them under the provisions of this Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations or any other Acts passed by the State Legislature in this regard, shall be complied with; (ix) that, there shall be no transfer of the management or ownership of the college without previous sanction of the University; (x) that the college or institution shall not be closed without previous sanction of the University; (xi) that in the event of disaffiliation or de­recognition or closure of the college or institution, all the assets of 7 the   college   or   institution   including   building   and equipment which have been constructed or created out of   the   amount   paid   as   a   grant­in­aid   by   the Government   or   the   University   Grants   Commission shall vest in the Government. 9. While section 60 extracted above, lays down in detail, the criteria for and the conditions subject to which, affiliation can be granted   to   an   institution,   Section   63   of   the   University   Act indicates the procedure for continuation of affiliation. It reads as follows:

10. The first respondent is a self­financing Institution which was earlier offering B.Tech courses in five disciplines with an annual permitted intake of 60 students in each of the disciplines. 8 After   closing   the   course   in   one   particular   discipline,   the   first respondent applied in February/March­2020 seeking approval of the AICTE for starting a new course in  “Artificial Intelligence and Data Science ” with a permitted annual intake of  60 students, from   the   Academic   Year   2020­21.   The   application   was   in accordance with the AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2020­21, issued in terms of the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020. 11. On   13.06.2020,   AICTE   granted   approval   to   the   first respondent, for starting the newly proposed course, even while granting extension of approval for the existing courses. 12. Simultaneously with the submission of the application to the AICTE, the first respondent also submitted an application for affiliation to the appellant­University, in February/March 2020. The first respondent also paid the Inspection Fee/Affiliation Fee. 13. But even before the first respondent took a decision to start a new course, something happened in the State of Kerala. A study conducted by a group of academic experts seems to have revealed that there was a steady decline in the actual intake of students in 9 self­financing   engineering   colleges.   As   against   the   permitted intake of 58,165 students for the academic year 2015­16, only 37,007 students got admitted leaving 19,468 seats vacant. The number   of   vacant   seats   rose   to   20,038   in   the   academic   year 2016­17 and to 22,819 in the academic year 2017­18.   14. Therefore, based on the study conducted by the group of academic experts, the Government issued an order in G.O. (Rt) No.1039/2019/HEDN dated 22.06.2019. It was directed by this Order that permission for starting new courses in Engineering shall be granted only if three conditions are satisfied namely:  (i) that   the   college   should   have   NBA   accreditation;   (ii)   that   the admission   of   students   in   the   previous   academic   years   should have been more than 50% of the sanctioned intake; and  (iii)  that the new course should be innovative. 15. Following the said Government order, the Syndicate of the appellant­University resolved in its meeting held on 04.02.2020 to fix the following norms for the grant of affiliation to new programs based on the recommendation of the Academic Council:  (i)  that at 10 least one of the existing programs should have NBA accreditation; (ii)   that   the   average   annual   intake   of   the   institution   for   the previous three years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake;   (iii)   that  the   proposed   programme   should   have   AICTE approval   and   NOC   from   State   Government;   and   (iv)   that   the proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. 16. Thereafter,   a   sub­committee   was   constituted   for   the purpose   of   recommending   affiliation   for   new   courses   or programmes   for   the   affiliated   colleges   who   have   submitted applications for starting new programmes. This sub­committee resolved   in   its   meeting   held   on   20.03.2020   to   suggest   the following criteria for the consideration of the Syndicate of the University:­ 1. The   sub­committee   examined   all   the   50   proposals received till 19­03­2020 from various colleges for granting affiliation   to   new   programs/additional   intakes.   Upon scrutiny   of   each   application   in   line   with   the   criteria suggested by the Syndicate as cited above, 21 institutions are found to be eligible.  The details of these 21 institutions and programs/courses applied are attached as Annexure 1. Accordingly,   the   sub­committee   recommends   that   the proposals   from   these   21   institutions   for   starting   new 11 programs/additional intake be favourably considered by the Syndicate for issuing NOC for granting affiliation. 2. The sub­committee recommends that the applications for   BVoC   courses   be   considered   by   the   Syndicate   for appropriate policy decisions. 3. The sub­committee recommends that the applications for BVoC courses be considered by the Syndicate/refer the matter to the Director of Technical Education for appropriate policy decisions. 4. The   sub­committee   identified   two   case   wherein   the institutions   are   having   NBA   accreditation   but   with percentage intake less than 50.  These two cases are referred to the Syndicate for appropriate decisions. 5. The sub­committee recommends that for the courses listed in Annexure 1 detailed syllabus and curriculum are to be   framed   in   a   time   bound   manner   well   before   the commencement of the courses. 17. Finding   that   the   Government   Order   G.O.   (Rt)   No.1039, dated   22.06.2019   and   the   resolution   of   the   Syndicate   dated 04.02.2020  has  led  to an  unfavourable  climate  with  the sub­ committee   not   recommending   the   grant   of   affiliation   for   their proposed   new  course,   the   first  respondent­College   filed   a writ petition in Writ Petition (C) No.12709 of 2020 before the High Court of Kerala. It appears that the writ petition was filed on 23.06.2020, seeking the following reliefs  namely:   (i)   to set aside the   Government   Order   dated   22.06.2019;   (ii)   to   direct   the 12 University to grant affiliation for the newly proposed course for the academic year 2020­21;   (iii)   to quash the resolution of the Syndicate dated 04.02.2020, as communicated by the Order of the Registrar of the University dated 10.06.2020;  (iv)  to direct the University   to   consider   the   application   for   affiliation   of   the proposed   course,   without   insisting   on   NBA   accreditation   and without insisting on NOC from State Government; and  (v)  to grant affiliation for the newly proposed course without insisting on any criteria based upon the report of the sub­committee. th  18. By sheer coincidence, the 13 meeting of the Syndicate of the   appellant­University   was   held   on   24.06.2020,   the   day following the date on which the first respondent College filed the writ petition before the High Court. This Syndicate meeting was chaired by the Vice Chancellor of the University. It was attended by   a   total   of   nine   persons,   of   which   one   was   the   Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department of the Government of Kerala, and another was the Director of Technical Education. The   rest   were   academicians.   In   this   meeting,   the   Syndicate examined   the   list   of   colleges   which   had   applied   for   new 13 courses/programmes, without any NBA accreditation.  Finding that even colleges which did not have NBA accreditation had been granted approval by AICTE, the Syndicate resolved in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 that affiliation can be granted even to colleges without NBA accreditation, subject to the satisfaction of the following criteria:  (i)  that the Institution should have more than   50%   pass   for   the   outgoing   students   at   the   time   of application for affiliation;     that the Institution should have (ii) most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”; and  (iii)  that the  Institution should have three years average intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake. 19. Though   the   first   respondent   filed   the   writ   petition   on 23.06.2020   challenging   the   order   of   the   University   dated 10.06.2020 and though the earlier Syndicate Resolution dated 04.02.2020   (on   which   the   order   of   the   Registrar   dated 10.06.2020 was based) stood modified by the next Syndicate Resolution dated 24.06.2020, the first respondent did not seek any amendment of the prayer. The net result was that one of the orders (of the University) impugned in the writ petition stood 14 amended,   by   the   time   the   writ   petition   was   heard,   but   the amendment was not under challenge.   20. The writ petition filed by the first respondent challenging the   denial   of   affiliation   for   starting   a   new   B.Tech   course   in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, was taken up along with similar writ petitions filed by other colleges (including those filed by the Colleges, which have now come up with applications for intervention/impleadment and for vacation of interim order) and all of them were disposed of by a learned Judge of the High Court by a Judgment dated 06.08.2020. By the said Judgment, the learned Judge held:  (i)  that in view of the requirements of Section 14   of   the   University   Act   read   with   Section   30(2)(xiv),   the Syndicate cannot be said to be lacking in authority for fixing the norms for affiliation;  (ii)  that the norms fixed by the Syndicate in its resolution dated 04.02.2020 as communicated by the Order of the   Registrar   dated   10.06.2020   would   be   applicable   to   both programmes and courses;  (iii)  that in view of the resolution of the Syndicate   dated   24.06.2020,   NOC   from   the   State   Government 15 and NBA accreditation are no longer necessary;   (iv)   that as a consequence, the State Government Order dated 22.06.2019 was liable to be set aside; and     that the University may have to (v) reconsider   one   portion   of   its   decision   dated   24.06.2020,   after taking note of the recommendation contained in Annexure 1 and Clause 7 of Annexure 14 of the Approval Process Handbook and a clarification issued by AICTE. Annexure 1 of the Approval Process Handbook   contained   a   recommendation   to   discourage   the creation   of   additional   seats   in   traditional   disciplines,   but   to encourage conversion of current capacity in traditional disciplines to emerging new technologies. Clause 7 of Annexure 14 made accreditation   mandatory   for   increase   in   intake/starting   new courses.  21. Not   satisfied   with   the   partial   relief   granted   and   the directions issued by the learned Judge, the first respondent filed a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No.1073 of 2020 before the Division Bench   of   the   High   Court.   The   other   Colleges   who   were   writ petitioners, also filed separate writ appeals. 16 22. By the common Judgment dated 08.09.2020 impugned in this appeal, the Division Bench partially allowed the writ appeals, holding:  (i)  that the Syndicate did not have the power to take the decisions   dated   04.02.2020   (as   communicated   on   10.06.2020) and 24.06.2020, as there was no University Statute in force on that   date   and   that   in   the   absence   of   the   Statute,   the   Vice­ Chancellor alone had the power under section 14(6) of the Act to make   any   recommendation   to   the   Board   of   Governors   in   the matter of affiliation; and  (ii)  that the University cannot go beyond AICTE Regulations.  23. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the University has come up with the above appeal. It is stated across the Bar that the appellant­University has   filed   similar   appeals   against   the   very   same   impugned Judgment and those appeals are yet to be numbered. 24. Though the learned Single Judge dealt with several issues, the focus of the Division Bench was mainly on two issues namely: (i)  the power of the Syndicate to lay down norms for the grant of 17 affiliation; and  (ii)  the very power of the University to go beyond the AICTE Regulations. 25. On   the   first   issue   revolving   around   the   power   of   the Syndicate, the High Court held that under Section 63(2) of the State University Act, an application for affiliation or recognition for additional courses of study made by a College which already holds affiliation, should be considered by the University following the   procedure   prescribed   in   the   Statutes.   Admittedly   the   first University Statute was issued only on 07.08.2020. Therefore the Division Bench of the High Court held that on the date on which the applications for affiliation for additional courses of study were made by the Colleges and processed by the University, there was no Statute of the University.  Hence the Division Bench concluded that the only option available in such circumstances where there was no Statute, was for the Vice Chancellor to take recourse to the power available under Section 14(6) of the University Act. But this power, in the opinion of the High Court, has to be exercised by   the   Vice   Chancellor   with   the   approval   of   the   Board   of Governors. As this was not done, the Division Bench remanded 18 the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to follow the course of action available under Section 14(6). 26. It is relevant to note at this stage that the power of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards for affiliation, which it did as per its Resolutions, was upheld by the learned Single Judge, on a reading of Section 30(2)(xiv) of the Act. The Judgment of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   delivered   on   06.08.2020, upholding the power of the Syndicate, even in the absence of the Statutes of the University, to lay down norms for affiliation for additional   courses.   However,   on   the   very   next   day   namely 07.08.2020, the First Statutes of the University were also issued. 27. Therefore, when the colleges filed writ appeals and argued about the procedure to be followed under Section 14(6) in the absence of the Statutes, the appellant­University relied upon the Statutes   issued   on   07.08.2020   and   the   power   of   ratification. Statute No.93 was brought to the notice of the Division Bench to show that all matters relating to affiliation fell within the scope of the powers of the Syndicate. But the Division Bench not only rejected the argument of ratification, but also rejected the reliance 19 placed upon Statute No.93 on the ground that the power under Statute   No.93   may   relate   only   to   the   grant   of   affiliation   of   a teaching course or any subject in a teaching course, conducted in any of the colleges which are not affiliated.   28. But we do not think that the view taken by the Division Bench both with regard to the prescription contained in Section 63(2) and with regard to the powers of the Vice Chancellor under Section 14(6), is in sync with the scheme of the University Act. Section 63(2) which we have already extracted in paragraph 9 above, actually deals with the grant of affiliation or recognition for additional   courses   to   an   affiliated   college   or   recognized institution. This provision does not deal with the laying down of norms and standards. The Division Bench overlooked the fact that what was in issue before the Court was a Resolution passed by the Syndicate, first on 04.02.2020 as communicated by the Order of the Registrar dated 10.06.2020 and then on 24.06.2020. In other words what was in question in the writ petitions filed by the Colleges, was not merely the individual act of grant or denial 20 of   affiliation   for   additional   courses.   The   challenge   was   to   the norms fixed by the Syndicate in its meetings dated 04.02.2020 and 24.06.2020 for the grant of affiliation for additional courses. Section 63(2) does not deal with the issue of laying down norms and standards, but deals only with the grant of affiliation for additional courses in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Statutes. 29. The manner in which the Division Bench of the High Court construed Section 14(6), is also not correct. It will be useful to extract Sub­sections (5), (6) and (14) of Section 14. They read as follows: “ 14. Powers of the Vice­Chancellor xxxx (5) If there are reasonable grounds for the Vice­Chancellor to   believe   that   there   is   an   emergency   which   requires immediate action to be taken, he shall, take such action as he thinks necessary, and shall, submit for approval in the next meeting, the grounds for the emergency and the action taken   by   him,   to   such   authority   or   body   which,   in   the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter. In the event of a difference arising between the Vice­Chancellor and the   authority,   on   the   issue   of   existence   of   such   an emergency, or on the authority, on the issue of existence of such an emergency, or on the action taken or on both, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final. 21 (6) Where   any   matter   is   required   to   be   regulated   by Statutes or Regulations but no Statues or Regulations have been made in that behalf, the Vice­Chancellor shall for the time being, regulate the matter by issuing such directions as the Vice­Chancellor thinks necessary, and shall, as soon as may be, submit them before the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned for approval. xxxx (14) The Vice­Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred upon the Vice­Chancellor by or under this Act and Statutes.” 30. On a reading of Section 14(6), the High court came to the conclusion that the Vice Chancellor, in the absence of Statutes, may be entitled to issue directions for regulating certain matters, but if he does so, he has to take the approval of the Board of Governors. But the High Court overlooked several facts. First is that Sub­section (5) of Section 14 confers emergency powers on the Vice Chancellor and Sub­section (14) recognises the residuary powers of the Vice Chancellor. Second is that even sub­section (6) uses   the   words   “ Board  of  Governors  or other authority or body concerned for approval”.   Therefore, it is not necessary that the Vice­Chancellor, after issuing directions, should take the approval of the Board of Governors alone. He was entitled to take the approval of “the other authority or body concerned”. 22 31. In   the   case   on   hand,   the   Syndicate   of   the   University comprised of nine persons, including the Vice Chancellor, the Principal Secretary to the Higher Education Department of the Government of Kerala, the Director of Technical Education and a few   academicians.   All   that   the   Syndicate   wanted   from   the Colleges   seeking   affiliation   for   additional   courses,   was   the fulfillment of just three simple criteria namely  (i)  more than 50% pass   for   the   outgoing   students   at   the   time   of   application   for affiliation;  (ii)  most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”; and   (iii)   three   years   average   intake   of   more   than   50%   of   the sanctioned intake. 32. As we have seen earlier, the power to lay down norms and standards and the power to affiliate to itself the Colleges, flow out of clause (iii) and (iv) of Section 8. This power is exercisable by University   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. It is the very same Section 8 which confers power upon the University to make Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations, under clause (xxvi).   23 33. Section 22 speaks of different authorities of the University. Under Section 22, as it was originally drafted, the University shall have   a   Board   of   Governors,   an   Executive   Committee,   the Academic   Committee,   the   Research   Council   and   such   other bodies as may be designated by the Statutes, to be the authorities of the University. The University Act 17 of 2015 was amended by A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (Amendment) Act, 2018.  The Amendment Act, though notified in the Kerala Gazette on 03.07.2018, came into effect from 08.12.2017. Through this Amendment Act, the nomenclature of the ‘Academic Committee’ was   changed   to   ‘Academic   Council’   and   the   nomenclature   of ‘Executive   Committee’   was   changed   to   ‘Syndicate’.   Therefore, wherever   there   was   a   reference   in   the   Act,   to   the   ‘Executive Committee’,   it   had   to   be   construed   as   a   reference   to   the ‘Syndicate’.    34. Section 30(1) vests upon the Syndicate, the executive , including the general superintendence powers of the University and control over the institutions of the University. Sub­section (2) 24 of Section  30  lists  out  the  powers  available  to  the  Syndicate, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. The power under Clause (iii) of Sub­section (2) of Section 30 is of relevance and it reads as follows:­ “(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:­ (i) ……… (ii) ……… (iii)   to   propose   norms   and   standards   for   affiliating colleges   as   regular   colleges   or   autonomous   colleges   or constituent colleges of the University.” Thus,   the   source   of   power   for   the   Syndicate   to   prescribe . Section norms and standards for affiliation, is Section 30(2) 30(2) begins with the words “subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes”. So, if there is something in the  Act or the Statutes which regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the Syndicate may be bound by such prescription. But if there is nothing in the Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then it cannot be said that the power itself is unavailable. What is important to observe is that  the power of the Syndicate to propose norms and standards flows out of the Act and not out   of   the   University   Statutes.   Therefore,   the   absence   of 25 Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did not mean that the power under Section 30(2) could not have been exercised. The High Court erred in thinking that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to the Vice Chancellor under  Section 14(6),  overlooking  for  a moment  that the power under   Section   30(2)(iii)   would   not   become   otiose   due   to   the absence of the Statutes.  35. Section   42   of   the   Act   which   speaks   about   the   issue  of Statutes and the matters for which provisions may be made in the Statutes, makes it clear that  “the conditions and procedures for affiliation  of  Colleges  and  for withdrawing  the  affiliation of colleges”,  is one of the matters that could be provided for in the Statutes. This is under Clause (xi) of Section 42. Therefore, it is clear   that   the   Statutes   can   provide   for   the   conditions   and procedure   for   affiliation.   The   absence   of   the   Statutes   (till 07.08.2020) would only mean the absence of Statute­stipulated conditions and procedure for affiliation, but not the absence of the very power of the Syndicate flowing out of Section 30(2)(iii). Therefore, it was not necessary for the Vice Chancellor to fall 26 back   upon   Section   14(6)   on   the   ground   that   there   were   no Statutes at that time. 36. Even   assuming   for   a   moment   that   the   absence   of   the Statutes   would   take   one   automatically   to   Section   14(6),   the inference drawn therefrom by the High Court may not be correct. Section 14(6) says that in the absence of a Statute, it is the Vice Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations. It cannot be interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the power. In any case, the language of Section 14(6) is such that the   Vice   Chancellor   may   first   regulate   the   matter   by   issuing directions and thereafter submit the same  “ ” as soon as may be for the approval of the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned. By virtue of Section 30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the “other authority” referred to in Section 14(6). If we do so, it can be seen that it was the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice   Chancellor   which   took   the   impugned   decisions   in   its meetings   held   on   04.02.2020   and   24.06.2020   and   hence   the 27 prescription   of   norms   by   the   Syndicate,   chaired   by   the   Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be  ultra vires  the Act.  37. In any case, once the Statutes were issued on 07.08.2020, the   vacuum   sought   to   be   filled   up   by   Section   14(6)   also disappeared.   Under   Section   43(1)   of   the   Act,   the   State Government   has   the   power   to   issue   the   first   Statutes   of   the University .  Accordingly, the Government issued the first Statutes on 07.08.2020. There is nothing in the Statutes that appears to curtail   the   power   of   the   Syndicate   to   lay   down   norms   and standards.   Under   Clause  (xi)   of   Section   42,   the   Statutes may provide for the conditions and the procedure for affiliation. But the Statutes do not appear to lay down any conditions. Statute No.93 relied upon by the University seems to have left it to the Syndicate   to   prescribe   the   conditions.   Statute   No.93   reads as follows: “Statute 93 Clause (xlix) To   grant   exemption   or   reduction   in   the   following mattes   and   also   other   mattes   not   specified   here   below, subject to the provisions of the University Act: a)xxxxx b)xxxxx c)xxxxx d)xxxxx e)xxxxx 28 f)xxxxx g) Matters relating to granting of affiliation for a course of   study   or   any   subject   in   a   course   of   study   not already affiliated to the University, conducted in any of the colleges.” 38. When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 30(2), is made free of any fetters. 39. Therefore,  the norms  prescribed by  the Syndicate  in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor could not have been taken exception to. After all, the norms which the Colleges have objected to, merely seek to ensure that   at   least   50%   of   the   outgoing   students   had   passed   their respective courses and that the Institution should have the most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”, apart from having an actual intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years on an average. We fail to understand how colleges can demand affiliation for creating additional courses, when the pass percentage of outgoing students is less than 50% 29 and the Colleges could not even have an average intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years. 40. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in holding on the first issue that the resolutions passed by the Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of affiliation for additional courses, are   the Act.  ultra vires 41. Let us now take up the second issue revolving around the role   of   the   appellant­University   vis­a­vis   AICTE.   A   little elaboration may be necessary as this issue keeps recurring very often. 42. The   AICTE,   was   actually   set   up   in   1945   as   a   National Expert Body to advice the Central and State Governments for ensuring the Coordinated Development of Technical Education in accordance with approved standards. After the mushroom growth of private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics and the growing erosion of standards, the Council felt it necessary that it should be   vested   with   statutory   powers   to   regulate   and   maintain standards of Technical Education in the country. Therefore, a National Working Group was set up in November, 1985. On the 30 basis   of   the   recommendations   made   by   the   National   Working Group, the AICTE Act, 1987 was enacted. Section 23(1) of the AICTE   Act   empowers   the   Council   to   make   regulations   not inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules, generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 10(1) of the Act enjoins upon the Council, the duty to take all such steps as may   be   necessary   for   ensuring   coordinated   and   integrated development   of   Technical   and   Management   Education   and maintenance of standards. Clause (i) of sub­section (1) of Section 10 empowers the Council to lay down norms and standards for courses,   curricula,   physical   and   instrumental   facilities,   staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations.   Clause(o)   empowers   the   Council   to   provide guidelines for admission of students to Technical Institutions and Universities   imparting   technical   education.   Clause(k)   of   Sub­ section (1) of Section 10 empowers the Council to grant approval for starting new Technical Institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. 31 43. It will be of interest to note that Sub­section (2) of Section 23, which enlists the matters that could be provided for in the Regulations framed by the AICTE, does not include any of the powers indicated in Section 10(1). Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub­section (2) of Section 23 deal with the manner in which the meetings of the Council are to be regulated, the procedure for conducting business at the meetings of the Council, the terms and conditions of   service   of   officers   and   employees   of   the   Council,   the constitution and powers of the Board of Studies etc. But Sub­ section   (2)  of   Section   23   makes   it   clear   that   the   items  listed therein are without prejudice to the generality of the powers to make   Regulations   under   Sub­section   (1),   for   carrying   out   the purposes of the Act. This is why all Regulations are issued by AICTE in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) read with the relevant clauses of Sub­section (1) of Section 10. 44. The AICTE Act is to be traced to Entry 66 of List­I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological   University   Act   issued   by   the   Kerala   State Legislature can be traced to Entry 25 of List­III. 32 1 45. In  vs. ,  the R. Chitralekha   State of Mysore and Others Constitution Bench of this Court pointed out that the question regarding the impact of Entry 66 of List­I on Entry­25 of List­III must be determined by a reading of the Central Act and the State Act   conjointly.   The   Court   pointed   out   that   a   State   Law providing for such standards, having regard to Entry 66 of List­I, would be struck down as unconstitutional only if the same is found to be so heavy or devastating as to wipe out . or appreciably abridge the Central field and not otherwise The Court also pointed out that if a State law prescribes higher percentage of marks for extra­curricular activities in the matter of admissions   to   colleges,   it   cannot   be   said   that   it   would   be encroaching on the field covered by Entry 66 of List­I. 46. The   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   R.   Chitralekha (supra) was followed in several cases including the one in  State 2 vs. . The decision in of A.P.   K. Purushotham Reddy and others K.  Purushotham   Reddy   (supra)   arose   under   very   peculiar 1  AIR 1964 SC 1823  2  (2003) 9 SCC 564 33 circumstances. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted in the year 1986,   an   Act   known   as   Andhra   Pradesh   Commissionerate   of Higher Education Act, 1986. The constitutional validity of the said   Act   was   questioned   on   the   ground   of   lack   of   legislative competence, in view of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.   Though   a   Full   Bench   of   the   High   Court   rejected   the challenge,   the   Supreme   Court   declared   the   Act   as unconstitutional,   by   its   judgment   in   Osmania   University vs Teachers’   Association   .   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and 3 Another . Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988. This Act was declared as unconstitutional by the High Court, on the same premise on which the 1986 Act was declared by this Court as unconstitutional. Therefore, the matter was carried to this   Court.   A   Two   Member   Bench   of   this   Court   doubted   the correctness of the decision in   Osmania University Teachers’ (supra), and hence, the matter was referred to a Association   three­member   Bench.   The   three­member   Bench   rejected   the 3  (1987) 4 SCC 671 34 challenge   to   the   State   Act,   by   following   the   decision   in   R. Chitralekha  (supra) and pointed out that when a State Act is in aid of the Parliamentary Act, the same would not entrench upon the latter.  47. The law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms. As regards the role of the Universities  vis­à­vis  the AICTE, this Court held in  vs. Bharathidasan University and Another  4 All India Council for Technical Education and Others , that AICTE is not a super power with a devastating role undermining the   status,   authority   and   autonomous   functioning   of   the Universities in areas and spheres assigned to them. This view was followed in  Association of Management of Private Colleges  vs. 5 .  All India Council for Technical Education and Others 48. That   even   the   State   Government   can   prescribe   higher standards than those prescribed by AICTE was recognized by a 3­ 4     (2001) 8 SCC 676 5   (2013) 8 SCC 271 35 member Bench of this court in   vs. State of T.N. and Another   6 S.V.   Bratheep   (Minor)   and   Others .   This   principle   was   later applied   in   the   case   of   Universities   in   Visveswaraiah Technological University and Another  vs.  Krishnendu Halder 7 where this Court considered the previous decisions and Others   and summarised the legal position emerging therefrom as follows: (i) While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to institutions of higher education, the State/University cannot adversely   affect   the   standards   laid   down   by   the   Central Body/AICTE.   The   term   “adversely   affect   the   standards” refers   to   lowering   of   the   norms   laid   down   by   Central Body/AICTE. Prescribing higher standards for admission by laying down qualifications in addition to or higher than those prescribed by AICTE, consistent with the object of promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education, will not be considered as adversely affecting the standards laid down by the Central Body/AICTE. (ii) The observation in para 41(vi) of Adhiyaman to the effect that   where   seats   remain   unfilled,   the   state   authorities cannot   deny   admission   to   any   student   satisfying   the minimum standards laid down by AICTE, even though he is not qualified according to its standards, is not good law. (iii) The fact that there are unfilled seats in a particular year, does not mean that in that year, the eligibility criteria fixed by  the State/University would cease to apply or that the minimum eligibility criteria suggested by AICTE alone would apply. Unless and until the State or the University chooses to   modify   the   eligibility   criteria   fixed   by   them,   they   will continue to apply in spite of the fact that there are vacancies or unfilled seats in any year. The main object of prescribing 6   (2004) 4 SCC 513 7   (2011) 4 SCC 606 36 eligibility criteria is not to ensure that all seats in colleges are   filled,   but   to   ensure   that   excellence   in   standards   of higher education is maintained. (iv) The State/University (as also AICTE) should periodically (at such intervals as they deem fit) review the prescription of eligibility   criteria   for   admissions,   keeping   in   balance,   the need to maintain excellence and high standard in higher education  on  the  one  hand, and the need  to maintain a healthy ratio between the total number of seats available in the state and the number of students seeking admission, on the other. If necessary, they may revise the eligibility criteria so as to continue excellence in education and at the same time being realistic about the attainable standards of marks in the qualifying examinations. 49. (supra)   principles   were   reiterated   in Visveswaraiah   Mahatma Gandhi University and Another  vs . Jikku Paul and 8 The legal position summarised in  paragraph 14 of  the Others .   report in   Visveswaraiah   (supra) (extracted above) were quoted with   approval   by   the   Constitution   Bench   in   Modern   Dental College & Research Centre and Others  vs . State of Madhya 9 Pradesh and Others .  In  Modern Dental College  (supra), issue No. IV framed for consideration by the Constitution Bench (as reflected in the opinion of the majority) was as to “ whether the legislation   in   question   was   beyond   the   legislative 8 ( 2011) 15 SCC 242 9    (2016) 7 SCC 353 37   While competence   of   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh”. answering this issue, the opinion of the majority was to the effect (i) that the decision in   vs Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another   . 10 State of M.P. and Others  did not exclude the role of the States altogether   from   admissions;   and   (ii)   that   the   observations   in vs Bharati Vidyapeeth (deemed university) and Others  . State 11 of Maharashtra and Another   as though the entire gamut of admissions was covered by Entry 66 of List­I, has to be overruled. In   the   concurring   and   supplementing   opinion   rendered   by   R. Banumathi,   J.,   in   (supra),   the   legal Modern   Dental   College   position enunciated in  Visveswaraiah  (supra) were extracted and followed. 50. But the High court placed reliance upon the decisions in (i) Jaya Gokul Educational Trust  vs . Commissioner & Secretary to   Government   Higher   Education   Department, 12 Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Another ,   (ii)   Mata 10   (1999) 7 SCC 120 11   (2004) 11 SCC 755 12   (2000) 5 SCC 231 38 vs. Gujri   Memorial   Medical   College     State   of   Bihar   and 13 Others and   (iii)   Rungta   Engineering   College,   Bhilai   and vs   . Another   Chattisgarh   Swami   Vivekanand   Technical 14 University and Another , to hold in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the impugned judgment that the University did not have the power to incorporate any additional conditions for affiliation and that the AICTE   Regulations   and   the   Approval   Process   Handbook constitute a complete code having a superior force. 51. But the High Court ought to have noticed that all the above 3   decisions   are   distinguishable.   In   Jaya   Gokul   Educational Trust  (supra), the question whether the State Government, as a matter   of   policy,   can   decline   to   grant   approval   for   the establishment   of   a   new   Engineering   College,   in   view   of   the perception of the State Government that the opening of a new college will not be in the interest of the students and employment, was answered in favour of the Institution.  13   (2009) 16 SCC 309 14   (2015) 11 SCC 291 39 52. Thereafter,   in   (supra),  the Bharathidasan   University   Supreme Court noted   Jaya Gokul Educational Trust   (supra) and   came   to   the   conclusion   that   a   careful   scanning   of   the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition will show that the role of the AICTE   vis­à­vis   the Universities   is   only   advisory,   recommendatory   and   a   guiding factor. Therefore, on the issue on hand,     is of no Jaya Gokul assistance   to   the   first   respondent.   Mata   Gujri   Memorial   followed   ,   without   reference   to Medical   College Jaya   Gokul Bharathidasan   University .   In   any   case,   as   on   date Visveswaraiah,   Mahatma   Gandhi   University   and   Modern Dental   College   hold   the   field,   but   apparently,   they   were   not brought to the notice of the High Court. 53. In   (supra),   on   which   the Rungta   Engineering   College   High   Court   placed   heavy   reliance,   this   Court   relied   upon   the decisions   in   State   of   T.N.   and   Another   vs .   Adhiyaman 15 and   Educational and Research Institute and Others   Jaya 15   (1995) 4 SCC 104 40 .   In   ,   this   Court   held   that   in   the   case   of Gokul Adhiyaman institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act   and   the   University   but   the   Central   Act   and   the   Council created under it that will have jurisdiction.  54. Rungta   Engineering   College   did   not   take   note   of Bharathidasan   University ,   B.V.   Bratheep,   Visveswaraiah Therefore, it cannot be said and Mahatma Gandhi University.  to reflect the correct position in law. 55. Quite unfortunately the AICTE has filed a counter affidavit before  this  Court supporting   the  case  of   the   first Respondent College   and   branding   the   fixation   of   additional   norms   and conditions by the University as unwarranted.   Such a stand on the part of the AICTE has compelled us to take note of certain developments  that  have  taken place  after  2012  on the  AICTE front. 56. After   the   advent   of   AICTE   Regulations,   2012,   the applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis of the self­disclosure made by the 41 colleges in their online applications. If all infrastructural facilities as   prescribed   by   AICTE   are   found   to   be   available   on   paper (whether available at site or not), the AICTE grants extension of approval. 57. The position ever since 2012 has been that all applications for approval/extension of approval are processed by AICTE only online.   The   AICTE   Regulations,   2020,   also   require   under Regulation   5.6.a.   that   existing   institutions   should   submit applications using their unique User ID. Regulation 6.3.a. states that the applications submitted by the existing institutions will be processed after confirming that the applicant had fulfilled all the norms and standards through the procedure as prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook. Chapter II of the Approval Process Handbook   for   2020­21   makes   it   clear   that   the   extension   of approval will be based on self­disclosure.   Paragraph 13 of the counter   affidavit   of   the   AICTE   contains   an   extract   of   Clause 2.15.4(b) of APH 2020­21, which confirms that the assessment is based on self­disclosure on AICTE web portal. 42 58. Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to conduct inspections   and   take   penal   action   against   colleges   for   false declarations, such penal action does not mean anything and does not   serve   any   purpose   for   the   students   who   get   admitted   to colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and not on site. The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how the students   will   get   compensated,   when   penal   action   is   taken against   colleges   which   host   false   information   online   in   their applications to AICTE. Ultimately, it is the universities which are obliged   to   issue   degrees   and   whose   reputation   is   inextricably intertwined with the fate and performance of the students, that may   have   to   face   the   music   and   hence   their   role   cannot   be belittled. Today, even the universities are being ranked according to the quality of standards maintained by them. The Ministry of Human   Resources   Development   of   the   Government   of   India launched  an  initiative  in September  2015,  known as  National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), for ranking institutions including universities in India. The ranking is based on certain parameters such as:   (i)   Teaching, Learning and Resources;   (ii) 43 Research and Professional Practice;   (iii)   Graduation Outcomes;   Outreach and Inclusivity; and (v) Peer Perception. No State (iv) run university can afford to have a laid­back attitude today, when their   own   performance   is   being   measured   by   international standards. Therefore, the power of the universities to prescribe enhanced norms and standards, cannot be doubted.    59. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the Kerala High Court in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the impugned judgment on issue no.2, is unsustainable. At the cost of  repetition,  we  point out that  while  universities  cannot dilute the standards prescribed by AICTE, they certainly have the power to stipulate enhanced norms and standards. 60.   Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The resolution passed by the   Syndicate   on   24.06.2020   in   modification   of   the   earlier resolution   dated   04.02.2020   is   upheld.   As   a   corollary,   the consequential actions, if any, of the University as regards the first respondent­College   are   also   upheld.   The   applications   for 44 impleadment/intervention are dismissed and the other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.   There will be no order as to costs. …………....................CJI. (S. A. Bobde) ...…………....................J. (A. S. Bopanna) …..……….....................J. V. Ramasubramanian) New Delhi December 10, 2020 45