NCTE Act 1993 | Regulator Possesses Inherent And Ancillary Power To Mandate Performance Appraisal Reports From Institutions: Supreme Court

"The statutory framework in which regulators are constituted, their duties and the functions as well as the necessity to ensure that they work effectively and efficiently are important to be borne in mind before exercising judicial review." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated September 3, 2026, held that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) possesses the legal authority to mandate the submission of annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) by Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs).

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighamtan Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that such regulatory measures are essential to ensure the accountability of educational institutions and fall within the Council's mandate to maintain standards in teacher education.

Regulatory Mandate Under NCTE Act

The dispute arose after the High Court set aside a Public Notice issued by the Member Secretary of the NCTE, which required TEIs to submit PARs annually. The High Court had opined that the notice was illegal as it lacked specific approval or delegation procedures mandated by the NCTE Act, 1993. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this technical approach, noting that the NCTE is a statutory body tasked with the "planned and co-ordinated development" of the teacher education system.

Court Rejects Narrow Judicial Review

The Supreme Court emphasized that when courts exercise judicial review over statutory regulators, they must avoid a pedantic or overly technical view of administrative actions. The bench held that the NCTE Act, through Section 12(k), specifically empowers the Council to "evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions." Consequently, the act of calling for PARs is a direct exercise of statutory power.

Accountability As A Pillar Of Administrative Law

The Court underscored that accountability consists of three essential dimensions: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. According to the bench, judicial review is only meaningful when it ensures that regulators are empowered to enforce these dimensions among their stakeholders. The judgment noted that the NCTE's actions are further justified by the fact that the Council itself is subject to performance audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

Incidental Powers Of A Regulator

Even in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, the Supreme Court ruled that a regulatory body may exercise powers that are incidental and ancillary to its primary functions. The Court held that a regulator is inherently entitled to demand reports and levy a process fee to effectively monitor the institutions under its jurisdiction. This ensures that the objectives of the NCTE Act and the fundamental right to education under Article 21A are implemented in their letter and spirit.

No Excessive Delegation Found

The bench clarified that the Executive Committee, as the executive arm of the Council, acted well within its authority by implementing the Council's decision through the impugned Public Notice. The Court observed that once the Council has deliberated and approved the policy of PARs, the Member Secretary is duty-bound to carry forward that mandate. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, confirming that the NCTE and the Executive Committee are fully empowered to call for annual PARs from TEIs.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2026