Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000054-000055 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 6499/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedents on exclusive Entry 66 power; strikes down Section 14(5) of PTU Act as ultra vires Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations 2018 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (distribution of legislative powers) and higher education regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The PTU Act’s Search-cum-Selection Committee provision (Section 14(5)) omits the UGC-Chairman nominee mandated by Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations 2018—framed under the UGC Act enacted via Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 exclusively occupies the field; a State statute under Entry 25 of List III cannot dilute central standards. There is no repugnancy test under Article 254 since the central enactment is traceable to List I and not the Concurrent List. Any deviation from Regulation 7.3 renders the State provision ultra vires. In exercise of Article 142, the incumbent may complete his tenure to avoid administrative disruption. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Overrules | Section 14(5) of the PTU Act to the extent it omits the UGC-Chairman nominee |
| Distinguishes | Repugnancy analysis under Article 254 when central law arises under List I |
| Follows | Dr. Preeti Srivastava; Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi; Kaiser-i-Hind |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Entry 66 of List I grants Parliament exclusive authority to determine standards in higher education, binding State university statutes.
- Clarifies that UGC Regulations 2018 (Regulation 7.3) are subordinate legislation with statutory force under the UGC Act; deviation renders State Act provisions ultra vires.
- Establishes that Article 254’s repugnancy mechanism applies only when both laws arise under the Concurrent List, not when central law is from List I.
- Provides that, under Article 142, an incumbent can finish tenure to prevent administrative vacuum even when selection process is void.
- Affirms binding nature of precedents: Dr. Preeti Srivastava, Gambhirdhan, Kaiser-i-Hind, and Hoechst Pharmaceutical.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Constitutional distribution: Article 246 and Seventh Schedule differentiate Parliament’s List I power and State’s List III power.
- Entry 66 of List I confers exclusive authority on Parliament to coordinate and determine higher-education standards.
- UGC Regulations 2018 derive statutory force from the UGC Act (Sections 14, 26) enacted under Entry 66.
- Section 14(5) of the PTU Act (Entry 25, List III) contradicts Regulation 7.3 by excluding a UGC-Chairman nominee and including a connected member, violating central standards.
- Doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 applies only within Concurrent List; here it is inapplicable as UGC Act is under List I.
- Deviation from mandatory central standards renders State enactment ultra vires.
- Inherent power under Article 142 employed to allow incumbent VC to complete tenure and participate in fresh selection.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions
- Presidential assent to the PTU Act was general, curing any inconsistency under Article 254.
- UGC Regulations pertain only to educational standards (Entry 66) and do not extend to administrative governance (Entry 25, List III).
- Precedents (R. Chitralekha; Modern Dental; TN Medical Officers) limit Entry 66 to academic standards, not committee composition.
- Even if selection process is void, the incumbent’s credentials are unchallenged; he should complete his tenure till Dec 2026.
Respondents’ Submissions
- Entry 66 of List I exclusively occupies the field of higher-education standards; State has no competence to legislate conflicting provisions.
- UGC Regulations 2018 are binding subordinate legislation; deviation is impermissible.
- Repugnancy cure under Article 254 is irrelevant because the central enactment stems from List I, not the Concurrent List.
- PTU Act Section 14(5) is ultra vires and appointment must be quashed without qualification.
Factual Background
The Union Territory of Puducherry enacted the PTU Act, 2019 under its Entry 25 List III power to establish the Technological University and its Search-cum-Selection Committee (Section 14(5)) for appointing a Vice-Chancellor. The committee, formed in Jan 2021, omitted a UGC-Chairman nominee as required by Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations 2018, yet recommended and secured the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor in Dec 2021. Two writ petitions challenged both the office-bearer’s appointment and the vires of Section 14(5) for conflicting with UGC Regulations. The Madras High Court struck down Section 14(5) as ultra vires but allowed the incumbent to continue till 30 June 2024; this order was stayed by special leave before the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- PTU Act, 2019, Section 14(5): composition of Search-cum-Selection Committee for Vice-Chancellor.
- UGC Act, 1956, Sections 14, 26(1)(e), 26(1)(g): empower UGC to frame Regulations.
- UGC Regulations 2018, Regulation 7.3(ii): mandates one nominee of the UGC Chairman in the Search Committee and prohibits members connected with the university.
- Entry 66, List I: exclusive Parliament power over coordination and determination of standards in higher education.
- Entry 25, List III: State power over education subject to Entries 63-66 of List I.
- Article 254: repugnancy doctrine applies only where both laws are in Concurrent List.
Procedural Innovations
- Invocation of Article 142 to allow an incumbent, whose selection was void, to complete tenure and participate in fresh selection.
- Clarification that fresh selection must strictly conform to central standards set by UGC Regulations 2018.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed — central dominance under Entry 66 of List I upheld and binding UGC Regulations enforced