By Pranika Goel
---
Citation: 2020 SCC Online SC 688
Act: UGC Guidelines under the University Grants Commission Act 1956
Principle: The UGC Guidelines directing the conduct of Final Year examinations by 31 August 2020 are valid
Facts
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsequent lockdown and hence deferment of examinations by universities and educational institutions across the country, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines dated 29.04.2020, which proposed the conduct of final year examinations by 31.07.2020. However, due to the continued rise in the number of COVID cases, the UGC issued new guidelines on 06.07.2020, which directed the universities that final/terminal year examinations be conducted by 31.08.2020, in an offline/online/hybrid mode, following the safety protocols as prescribed. The said order, along with an SOP issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) for the conduct of examinations as well as Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) order dated 06.07.2020 permitting the conduct of these examinations, is challenged by students, youth organizations and teacher associations through a writ petition. In another group of writ petitions, the decision of the State Disaster Management Authority as well as States of Maharashtra and West Bengal to award degrees to students without conducting examinations, has been challenged.
Issues and Reasoning
1. Whether the 06.07.2020 guidelines are beyond the scope of powers
of the UGC as mentioned in Entry 66 in List I in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, that is, falling outside the ambit of “coordination and
determination of standards in institutions of higher education”?
Education, being a concurrent subject, both the states and the union
can legislate upon it (Entry 25 in List III). However, the power of the states
is limited by Entry 66 of List I, which gives UGC an overriding power to ensure
standards in institutions of higher education. According to section 12 of the University
Grants Commission Act 1956, determination and maintenance of standards of examination
is within the functions of the commission. Hence, the guidelines directing the
conduct of examinations for final year students by universities are well within
the domain of UGC.
2. Whether the 06.07.2020 guidelines are non-statutory and merely
advisory and whether they are contradictory to the 29.04.2020 guidelines?
While the 29.04.2020 guidelines use the expression “advisory”, they
do not mean that the universities may choose not to conduct final year
examinations, while such option is clearly mentioned for intermediary year
examinations. The object of these guidelines was that a uniform academic
calendar be followed by all universities and that final year examinations be
conducted accordingly. Thus, the 06.07.2020 guidelines were in continuation and
not contrary to the 29.04.2020 guidelines.
Secondly, the guidelines issued were under such statutory powers
granted to the commission under s. 12 of the UGC Act, which provides that the
commission may take “all such steps” as are necessary for the determination and
maintenance of standards. The guidelines also have the backing of the UGC
(Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the Master’s Degree through
formal Education) Regulations, 2003, and hence are statutory in nature.
3. Whether the UGC guidelines are violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution as being unreasonable and arbitrary?
The guidelines differentiate between Final Year and Intermediary
students on a rational basis and there is an intelligible differentia between
the two categories of students, since Final Year examinations are an
opportunity for the students to improve their overall grades as well are more
reflective of the calibre of the students.
Further, by imposing a uniform date by which the examinations are to
be conducted, irrespective of the different degrees of crises in different
states, the guidelines do not violate Article 14, since the uniformity in
academic calendar is for the benefit of the students and their careers only.
The guidelines are not ignorant of the dismal situation due to the
pandemic, and have provided for several reasonable measures to protect the
interest of the students, and hence are not unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore,
the UGC guidelines are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the guidelines violate the Right to Life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution and have been issued with disregard to the
COVID-19 pandemic?
It was in view of the increasing gravity of the pandemic only that
the new guidelines offered an extension from 31.07.2020 to 31.08.2020, by which
Final Year examinations are to be conducted. Further, the guidelines contain
special provisions which direct institutions to follow all measures and protocols
issued to contain the virus. The MHRD also issued a Standard Operating
Procedure for the conduct of examinations, vetted by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare. Thus, the guidelines as well as the Ministry were duly
considerate of the health of the stakeholders, and not violative of Article 21
of the Constitution.
5. Whether the UGC guidelines do not fulfil the requirement of being
issued “after consultation with the Universities and other bodies concerned” as
per section 12 of the UGC act and hence are to be set aside?
The phrase “universities and other bodies concerned” has a specific
meaning and refer to only those bodies whose functioning is affected by the
functions as enlisted in section 12. It does not mean that each and every
university is to be consulted before any decision is taken. Such consultation
is necessary only when the commission is not able to discharge its functions
without it. The two guidelines were issued after the report of an expert committee,
consisting of various academicians and experts. The guidelines are issued under
the residuary clause (j) of the section and are general in nature. Hence, there
was no need to consult any specific university or health experts, and the
guidelines are compliance of section 12 of the UGC Act.
6. Whether the State or State Disaster Management Authority can take
a decision not to conduct examinations under the Disaster Management Act 2005,
contrary to the UGC guidelines?
The decision of the State and the State Disaster Management
Authority not to conduct examinations in view of the gravity of the pandemic,
was within the guidelines dated 30.05.2020 by the MHA as well as section 38 of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which allows the states to take any measure
for the prevention and mitigation of disaster. Now, section 72 of the same act
provides that the provisions under the act shall have overriding effect,
notwithstanding anything else. Further, the MHA order dated 06.07.2020 (supra)
as well as National Disaster Management Authority has not issued any direction
that fetters these powers of the states. Hence, the UGC guidelines are
overridden by the decision of the State and the State Disaster Management
Authority not to conduct the examinations.
7. Whether the State or State Disaster Management Authority can take
a decision to promote and award degrees to Final Year students without
conducting examinations under the Disaster Management Act 2005, as against the
UGC guidelines?
The benefit of overriding effect under section 72 of the Disaster
Management Act 2005 is only available to those powers which deal with the
prevention and mitigation of disasters. However, the decision to award degrees
to Final Year students without conducting examinations is not such a power.
Hence, the State government or State Disaster Management Authority does
not have the jurisdiction to take such a decision, and it is superseded by the
UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020, by virtue of Entry 66 of List I in Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Guidelines issued by the UGC
dated 06.07.2020 are not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It
was well within the powers of the UGC to issue them. They are statutory in
nature and valid as per the UGC Act.
Secondly, while the state government
and State Disaster Management Authority’s decision not to conduct examinations
in view of the worsening situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic is valid, these
bodies don’t have to power to issue directions to award degrees to Final Year
student without conducting examinations.
The Court further allowed any state/union territory to make an application to the UGC in case they need an extension of the deadline beyond 31.08.2020 as mentioned in the 06.07.2020 guidelines, for conducting the Final Year/Terminal Semester examinations.
---
Pranika Goel is a 2nd year Law student at National Law University, Delhi. Still exploring what her true calling is, she is interested in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Corporate Law and Cyber Law. She likes to read fiction, paint and cook to de-stress. A curious soul, she enjoys studying about other fields, particularly Positive Psychology and Mathematics.
No comments:
Post a Comment