Supreme Court to Review Regulation of Private Universities; Seeks Detailed Affidavits from Centre, States and UGC

The Supreme Court has decided to undertake a detailed review of how private and deemed-to-be universities are functioning across India. For this purpose, it has directed the Union Government, all State and Union Territory administrations, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to provide complete information on the establishment, regulation and oversight of these institutions.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria issued the order while hearing an unusual matter. The case originally began as a student’s writ petition asking for directions to Amity University to update its records to reflect her legally changed name. The Court has now expanded the matter into a public interest issue to examine the broader regulatory framework governing private universities.

Court Seeks Comprehensive Information

The order records that the Court wants clarity on how such universities came into existence, under what legal provisions they were set up, and what benefits the government extended to them. The Bench directed:

“This Court would like to have details from the Government(s) as to the background/circumstances and under which provisions of law all private/non-government/deemed-to-be Universities came into being and further, what benefits the Government has granted to them, including the stipulations and conditions under which such benefits, both in terms of allotment of land, preferential treatment of any kind and/or other ancillary benefits conferred upon them.”

The Bench also asked governments to provide the memorandum of articles, aims and objectives of the organisations running these universities, and details of the individuals or bodies controlling them. It further sought details of the apex decision-making bodies—whether Boards of Governors or Managing Committees—their composition, and how members are selected.

UGC Asked to Clarify Monitoring Responsibility

The Court also asked the UGC to file an affidavit explaining its statutory role in supervising private and deemed universities. The order stated:

“It is made clear that the affidavit by the UGC shall cover what the statute/policy mandates as also the actual mechanism to monitor/oversee compliance by the institutions.”

The Court directed the UGC to disclose the rules governing student admissions, procedures followed for recruiting academic staff, and the regulatory checks applied by governments to ensure compliance with legal or policy conditions.

Specific Questions Raised by the Court

The Court has required that the affidavits address the following points:

(a) Whether these universities operate on a “no profit, no loss” basis, if such claims are made. The Court wants information on how governments have ensured there is no diversion of funds to purposes unrelated to the educational institution, including payments or benefits to founders or their families.

(b) Details of grievance redressal mechanisms available to students and faculty.

(c) Whether these universities are paying the minimum legally mandated salaries to their teaching and non-teaching staff.

The Court has directed the Cabinet Secretary of the Government of India and all Chief Secretaries of States/UTs to collect this information from their respective departments and file personally affirmed affidavits. The order emphasised that there must be no suppression, misrepresentation or delegation:

“There shall not be any delegation of such filings. Further, responsibility for every disclosure and its correctness shall rest with the deponent(s) concerned. If there is any attempt to withhold/suppress/misrepresent/misstate facts in the affidavits called for, this Court will be compelled to adopt a strict view.”

Background of the Case

The student at the centre of the original petition legally changed her name from Khushi Jain to Ayesha Jain in 2021. She enrolled in a one-year certification programme at Amity University in 2023 using her new name. In 2024, when she applied for an MBA at the same institution, she submitted all legal documents requesting the university to update her name in its records.

However, she alleged that the officials refused to change her name because it was a “Muslim name”. According to her petition, this refusal affected her attendance requirements, prevented her from appearing for examinations, and caused her to lose an academic year.

She claimed that her complaints to the Ministry of Education and the UGC went unanswered. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Bench summoned Dr. Atul Chauhan, President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, and the Vice-Chancellor of Amity University to identify responsibility for the loss suffered by the student.

The petitioner later informed the Court that she had taken admission in another university and that Amity had refunded her fees. The University also paid her compensation of ₹1 lakh. However, the Court found this amount wholly inadequate, observing on October 14:

“After deliberating on the issue at length, the Court is not satisfied with either what has been brought on record or the conduct of the respondents. What is worse is that a mockery has been made of the Court’s sentiments by producing a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has been offered before this Court as compensation.”

On November 20, the Court decided to widen the matter and examine issues concerning private universities across the country.

Case Title: Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 531 of 2025.