To the huge relief of nearly two lakh students, the Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restrained the Centre from acting against 44 blacklisted deemed universities by ordering status quo.
The decision by the Division Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and AK Patnaik followed a move by the ministry of human resource and development to derecognise the 44 universities. The court issued notices to all 44, giving them an opportunity to be heard, and sought replies from parent universities to explain how the students, in case derecognition does take place eventually, would be affiliated.
The 44 institutes recommended for derecognition have 1,19,363 students at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels in addition to 2,124 pursuing research in M.Phil and Ph.D programmes. An estimated 74,808 pursue distance education programmes.
The ministry, represented by attorney general GE Vahanvati, offered to ?unconditionally? place on record before the court a ?full report? of studies conducted by the Review Committee?it was headed by Professor PN Tandon who recommended closure of these universities?and the work of the Task Force. The court accepted Vahanvati?s submission and directed him to place the report in two weeks.
On January 19, the ministry?s 11-page affidavit described how the Tandon panel had conducted an independent study of the standards and levels of performance of 126 of 130 universities accorded ?deemed-to-be? status by the University Grants Commission.
The affidavit said the institutions had ?neither on past performance nor on their promise for the future have they attributed to retain their status as deemed to be universities?.
The crowded courtroom saw many leading lawyers appear for some of the institutions whose futures were at stake. Among them was senior advocate Fali S Nariman who questioned how minister Kapil Sibal could ?readily accept? the recommendations of two non-statutory bodies like the Tandon panel and the Task Force without even a thought for the institutions and the students.
?The minister should not have done this. He should have first said he ?proposed? to do it. The government should have said they have only tentatively accepted the recommendations. My complaint is against the government alone for ?accepting? the Tandon recommendations,? Nariman submitted.
To this, Vahanvati replied that ?obviously we do not mean that we will go ahead and straight away de-recognise the universities. We propose to do a follow-up in detail. Acceptance of the Task Force report is Sept 1. What we will do ahead is Sept 2.?
Vahanvati repeatedly sought two weeks? time to file a detailed action plan for the court?s ?kind consideration? on the procedure to follow post de-recognition and the subsequent affiliation of the affected students.
But the court cut in, saying ?nothing will happen until we hear all of you (44 universities) and the final disposal of the matter because we consider this as a matter of vital public interest?.