State Cannot Override Higher Education Standards Set by Parliament: Supreme Court Declares Puducherry VC Appointment Illegal, Upholds Primacy of UGC Regulations

“Entry 66 of List I Is an Exclusive Domain of the Union – Standards Set by UGC Are Binding”, In a constitutionally momentous judgment with far-reaching implications for university governance across India, the Supreme Court of India on January 30, 2026, declared that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University (PTU) was vitiated due to the illegal constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, as it violated the binding Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.

“Any deviation from the mandatory UGC framework, particularly in matters of appointments in higher education, strikes at the root of national educational standards and cannot be sustained in law,” held a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Though the Court upheld the High Court’s declaration of illegality, it invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to permit Dr. Mohan to continue as Vice-Chancellor till the end of his tenure or until a valid appointment is made in accordance with UGC norms, whichever is earlier, in view of his clean record and to avoid institutional disruption.

“Composition of Selection Committee Is Part of the Standard-Setting Power Under Entry 66 of List I”: Court Rejects State’s Legislative Competence

The central legal question before the Court was whether Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 – which prescribed the composition of the Search Committee for appointing the Vice-Chancellor – could stand in conflict with UGC Regulation 7.3, which mandates the inclusion of a nominee of the UGC Chairman and prohibits inclusion of members connected with the University.

In a firm rejection of the appellant’s claim that education falls within Entry 25 of the Concurrent List (List III), the Court emphasized that the UGC Regulations, being framed under the UGC Act, are traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which deals with “coordination and determination of standards in higher education”, an exclusive Union domain.

“The inclusion of a UGC nominee is an integral component of the standards prescribed for appointments in higher education,” the Court held, declaring that the composition of the Committee was not a mere administrative detail, but a direct reflection of the standards that Parliament alone is empowered to set.

The Court observed that once Parliament legislates under Entry 66 of List I, States and Union Territories cannot dilute or override such standards, even under the Concurrent List.

“No Scope for Article 254 When Central Law Operates in Exclusive Field”: Court Clarifies Limits of State Autonomy

The Union Territory of Puducherry had attempted to justify the conflicting provisions of the PTU Act on the basis of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected this argument, noting that:

“The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 applies only when both Union and State laws operate within the Concurrent List. Where the Central legislation is referable to Entry 66 of List I, the question of repugnancy simply does not arise – it is a matter of lack of legislative competence.”

Reinforcing its earlier pronouncements in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated that standards in higher education fall squarely within Parliament’s exclusive legislative zone, and any conflicting State law is void ab initio for want of legislative competence – not merely voidable due to repugnancy.

“UGC Regulations Have Statutory Force – Universities Bound to Comply”

Reiterating its landmark ruling in Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, the Court reaffirmed the binding nature of UGC Regulations, observing:

“Being subordinate legislation laid before Parliament, the UGC Regulations form part of the parent Central law and cannot be disregarded by any State or University.”

“An appointment of a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the UGC Regulations is a violation of statutory norms and is amenable to a writ of quo warranto.”

The Court noted that in the instant case, the Search-cum-Selection Committee did not include a UGC nominee and included a member (Secretary, Higher & Technical Education) who was connected to the University, in direct violation of Regulation 7.3.

Accordingly, Section 14(5) of the PTU Act was declared ultra vires, and the appointment process was held to be vitiated.

“Removal Would Be Unduly Harsh – Tenure Allowed to Continue Under Article 142”

While holding the selection illegal, the Court acknowledged that Dr. S. Mohan had served as Vice-Chancellor since 2021 without any blemish, and that his removal could cause administrative vacuum and reputational damage.

“This Court is of the considered view that an immediate cessation of his tenure may result in grave stigma to the appellant and so also avoidable disruption in the academic and administrative functioning of the University.”

In a compassionate exercise of its Article 142 powers to do complete justice, the Court directed:

“The appellant shall continue to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor till the end of his normal tenure or till a new Vice-Chancellor is selected in accordance with law, whichever is earlier.”

The Court also clarified that Dr. Mohan is eligible to participate in the fresh selection process, and no prejudice shall attach to him by reason of this judgment.

“States Must Align Local Laws With UGC Regulations”: Court Leaves Door Open for Legislative Rectification

The Court concluded by leaving it to the Union Territory of Puducherry to amend or modify its statute, noting:

“The Legislature of the Union Territory of Puducherry remains fully empowered and at liberty to take such appropriate and necessary steps… to bring the provisions of the PTU Act in conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2018.”

This judgment is a watershed moment in the federal architecture of higher education governance, reinforcing that academic standards are a matter of national importance and cannot be left to disparate state-level deviations.

By declaring the UGC Regulations as the gold standard for university appointments and clarifying that Entry 66 List I overrides any competing State law, the Supreme Court has drawn a firm constitutional boundary around the autonomy of States in matters involving higher education standards.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2026