Supreme Court Upholds AICTE’s Authority Over Distance Learning Technical Degrees

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated September 24, 2018, in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., addressed the validity of technical degrees awarded through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode by deemed universities without prior approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The ruling reaffirmed the necessity of AICTE’s approval for technical education programs offered through distance learning.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, Jai Singh and six others, had enrolled in 2004 and 2005 in courses leading to degrees in engineering through the distance education mode at Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University). However, their degrees were later questioned on the grounds that they were awarded without AICTE approval.

In response, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the following reliefs:

• A declaration that their technical degrees obtained through Open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode were valid and did not require AICTE approval.
• A directive restraining authorities from treating their degrees as null and void.
• Recognition of degrees obtained through distance education mode as legally equivalent to degrees from regular AICTE-recognized institutions.
• Quashing of steps taken by AICTE and UGC to declare their degrees illegal.

Legal Precedents and Previous Rulings

The case was significantly influenced by a prior Supreme Court ruling in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Shankar Patro & Ors., which held that deemed universities could not offer technical courses through distance learning without AICTE approval.

The key directives from the Orissa Lift Irrigation judgment were:

• Deemed universities must obtain AICTE approval before introducing technical education courses.
• Degrees awarded in engineering through ODL mode by deemed universities without AICTE approval were invalid.
• Students with such degrees must pass an AICTE-conducted test to validate their qualifications.
• Refunds must be issued to students who opted out of the test.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners argued that:

• Their degrees should be recognized since they were enrolled before AICTE’s 2018 ruling on technical education through distance mode.
• The degrees had already been granted ex-post facto approval by UGC and state authorities.
• Other state universities offering similar courses were exempt from AICTE approval, and they should be treated similarly.
• The decision in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. should be applied to their case.

Arguments by the Respondents (UGC & AICTE)

The respondents, including UGC, AICTE, and the Union of India, countered these claims by asserting:

• The Supreme Court had already ruled that deemed universities could not offer technical education without AICTE approval.
• The petitioners’ reliance on Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University was misplaced, as that case involved a state university, which had separate legal status.
• AICTE regulations were binding on all institutions, and no exemptions could be granted retrospectively.
• The ex-post facto approval granted earlier was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Orissa Lift Irrigation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after examining the arguments and past rulings, held:

1. AICTE’s Authority is Absolute

The Court reaffirmed that AICTE’s approval is mandatory for technical education programs, including those offered via Open & Distance Learning mode.

“AICTE regulations apply to all technical education programs, including those offered by deemed universities through distance education. No institution can bypass AICTE’s oversight.”

2. The Degrees Are Not Valid Unless AICTE Conditions Are Met

The Court ruled that degrees granted to the petitioners stood suspended unless they successfully passed the AICTE-prescribed examination.

“All degrees in engineering awarded through distance learning by deemed universities without AICTE approval stand suspended. Students must pass an AICTE test to validate their qualifications.”

3. Refund Policy for Students

The Supreme Court upheld the directive requiring universities to refund tuition fees to students who opted not to appear for the AICTE test.

“Students unwilling to take the AICTE test shall be refunded their tuition and related fees within the stipulated time.”

4. One-Time Exception Not Applicable

The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University case, clarifying that state universities were subject to different regulatory frameworks.

“The case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University does not apply here, as the institution in question was a state university, not a deemed university.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The petition was dismissed.
• The Orissa Lift Irrigation ruling remains binding, and all directives therein must be followed.
• The degrees granted to the petitioners remain suspended unless they pass AICTE’s prescribed test.
• Deemed universities must comply with AICTE regulations before offering technical courses via distance learning.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences for technical education in India:

1. Clarity on AICTE’s Authority

The judgment reinforces that all technical education programs, including those offered through distance learning, must be approved by AICTE.

2. No Retrospective Recognition for Non-Approved Degrees

Degrees granted without AICTE approval cannot be retroactively validated by any other authority, including UGC.

3. Protecting Students’ Interests

By mandating tuition refunds for students opting out of the AICTE test, the Court ensures that affected students are not unfairly burdened.

4. Strengthening Regulation of Distance Learning

The ruling establishes stringent guidelines for the regulation of technical education, preventing unauthorized distance learning programs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jai Singh & Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors. is a landmark judgment that reinforces the need for AICTE’s oversight in technical education. The ruling clarifies that technical degrees awarded through distance learning without AICTE approval are invalid unless students pass a qualifying examination. This decision strengthens the regulatory framework for higher education and ensures that students receive legally recognized qualifications.

Petitioner Name: Jai Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: University Grants Commission & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 24-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Jai Singh & Ors. vs University Grants Co Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category