Tomlin’s law dictionary defines University as “a place where all kinds of literature are taught”. University is a corporation aggregate – Aggregation of corporations – The corporations are usually schools or colleges. It is a body incorporated for the purpose of learning, with various endowments and principles. Such bodies were anciently founded by Papal Bull or Charter, later by Royal charter. Oxford dictionary defines university as a “High level educational institutions, in which students study for research and academic research is done”. The word is a derivative from the Latin word, ‘Universite’ – meaning “the whole”. According to Ramanatha Iyer Law Lexican, it is a “A corporation of teachers or assembly of learned men or colleges for teaching higher branches of learning; and having power to confer degrees”. A university differs from a college in that it is usually larger, has a broader curriculum and offers graduate and professional degrees in addition to undergraduate degrees.

History of origin of Universities

In India, though many universities were established even 2500 years earlier like Nalanda, they were not similar to the modern day universities. The earliest Western institution that can be called a university was a famous medical school that arose at Salerno, Italy, in the 9th century and drew students from all over Europe. The first true university was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century. University of Paris founded between 1150 and 1170.

The first modern university was that of Halle, founded by Lutherans in 1694. These early universities were corporations of students and masters, and they received their Charters from Popes, Emperors and Kings. The modern universities were established in India in the year 1857. Three universities were established in the three metropolitan cities, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. All the universities were established by a specific law made by the legislatures.

In a unitary country, the legislative body will have the power to make any law on any subject. In most of the unitary countries, the constitution does not regulate or restrict the power of law making on any subject. In a federal country like India, where the law making power is distributed between the component units like provinces or State and the federal or Central governments, the field of legislation is demarcated by the constitution. Certain subjects are allotted exclusively to federal government and some subjects are allotted to the component units. Over some of the subjects, both federal as well as provincial state legislatures will have the power to make laws. This is to ensure separation of powers between the provinces and the federal government. It is also to prevent conflict of laws. Therefore. the constitution specifically defines and demarcates the powers of the legislative bodies. All the federal constitution like Canada, Australia, India and other nations do ensure the system of separation of powers through the constitution.

Subjects on which the Centre and States can make laws listed in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India

The Indian constitution ensures the separation of power in Part XI Chapter I (Art.245 to 255). The VII schedule contains the subject matters allotted to central government in List I, to state government in List II and the subject matters over which both the centre and state can make law is specified in List III, which are respectively called Union List, State List and Concurrent list. Thus, the Parliament and state legislatures can make law on the subject matters specified by the Constitution in the entries specified in the VII schedule. If the power is not relatable to any of the entries therein, the legislative bodies cannot make law on the subject. If such a law is made, it will be ultra vires the constitution and therefore, will be void and ‘non-est’ in law.

Cases arose due to the controversies between the laws of Centre and States

Inspite of such definite demarcation of powers, at times, dispute arises due to conflict of laws made by the State legislatures and Parliament. As early as 1951 [State of Bombay vs.
Balsara (AIR 1951 SC 318)], such a dispute went up to Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court held categorically that while determining the competency of the legislatures, the entries of different lists in the 7th schedule should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any of them. The Supreme Court reiterated in 1963 in Ramakrishna Rai vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 1667) when the argument was advanced that certain entries must be given more wider interpretation vis-a-vis other entries, the Supreme Court rejecting that contention, held that there can be no reason to give a broader interpretation to one power than the other. Further, in State of Bombay vs. Narottom Das Getha Bhai (IR 1951 SC 69), the Supreme Court held that when one item is general and another is specific, the latter will exclude the former. In another case, APSWI Society vs. Labour court AIR 1987 SC 182, the Supreme Court held that in case of conflict between entries in List I and List II, the question is not of repugnancy but of competence.

Widest meaning could not be attributed for any entry in the three lists of Schedule VII

From the above axiomatic principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that all the entries found in the 3 lists in VIIth schedule are to be given the widest meaning. Entry in List I cannot be given a wider meaning than an entry in List II or vice versa. Similarly, an entry in List III cannot be interpreted to widen its power when there are specific restrictions found in List I or List II. Therefore, only that legislative body, which has been conferred with the power to make law on a subject by the constitution, can make law on the subject matter. Otherwise, the law made by any legislative body would be void and untra vires the constitution.

What is said in the Constitution about the Universities

In the Constitution of India, the word University is found in the following three entries :

Entry 44 – List I – Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not, with objects not confined to one State, but not including universities.

Entry 32 – List II – Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations, co-operative societies.

Entry 25 – List III – Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.

How the subject Education has been taken from State List to Common List

Entry 25 was brought into List III only by 42nd amendment in the year 1976 during emergency. The 42nd Amendment was passed without any discussion in Parliament. Few persons know the contents of the 42nd Amendment. Prior to that, “Education” was found in Entry 11 of List II. That is, all matters relating to education, (subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I) were within the legislative competency of the States.

Centre has no powers to enact a law to create or wind up a new University

Entry 44 in List I means that power to make law relating to “incorporation, regulation, winding up of corporations” are conferred on the Parliament. This entry specifically excludes “universities”. That is, incorporation, regulation and winding up of universities are not included in this entry. The Entry 32 in List II relates to “incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations (other than those specified in List I) and universities. That is “incorporation, regulation and winding up” of universities are within the competence of state legislatures. Therefore, in so far as universities are concerned, power of incorporation, regulation and winding up is conferred only on state legislatures. Reading entry 44 (list I) and entry 32 (list II) together, makes it clear that incorporation, regulation and winding up of universities are conferred only on the State and that power has been specifically excluded from the union or central government. That is, central government and Parliament has no power to make law on matters relating to incorporation, regulation and winding up of universities. This power has been specifically conferred only on the state legislatures. That is, Parliament cannot make law incorporating or regulating or winding up any university.

10. The effect of transferring the subject of education from List II to III by 42nd amendment would mean that both the state and Parliament will have power to make law relating to education including technical education, medical education and universities. But the power of the state legislatures on this subject is subjected to the entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Here, the word “education including universities” does not include the power to make law relating to “incorporation, regulation or winding up” of universities. Since these aspects have been specifically covered under entry 44, List I and entry 32, List II, these aspects are excluded from entry 25 List III. Therefore, central government have no power to incorporate, regulate or winding up of universities as per the scheme of distribution of legislative powers.

Why IITs, IIMs were given status of Deemed Universities instead of declaring them as Universities.

Incorporation : The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 in Section 3 provides that the Government of India can, on the recommendation of UGC, declare any institution as “Deemed to be a University”. That is because central government has no power to incorporate any university. Incorporation means an act of forming or creating, it is nothing but establishment. Therefore, it is more probable that the central government was aware of the fact that it cannot establish an university and therefore, by section 3 of UGC Act, it conferred the status of “Deemed to be a University” on certain institutions like IIT.

Regulation : The word regulation means ‘a rule or order for management’ – ‘a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority’. To regulate means to control or supervise by means of rules and regulations. Management means administration, control, supervision, guidance etc.

Winding up means ‘closing’ any institution or organization.

Therefore, as per the provisions of the constitution, the federal or union government have no power to make law on the above said aspects.

Proposed National Commission for Higher Education and Research

The National Commission for Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010 There is a proposal to introduce the above Bill in Parliament, which contains, inter-alia, the following provisions :

(1) Section 2 make the Act applicable to all higher educational institutions (other than agricultural and medical institutions).

(2) Section 3(g) defines “Central University” as a university promoted and established under a Central Act.

(3) Section 3(u) provides that higher educational institutions includes universities etc.Section 3(ai) defines State university as one established under a State Act. Section 3(aj) defines university as university established by a central Act or State Act including deemed to be a University.

(4) Section 4 provides that a National Commission for Higher Education and Research shall be established.

(5) Under Section 17, a ‘collegium’ is to be established with wide powers.

(6) Section 20 relates to the preparation of National Registry of persons eligible and qualified for appointment as Vice Chancellors or head of institution of National importance.

(7) Section 24 specifies the powers and functions of the Commission, which includes, inter-alia, prescribing norms for transparent, efficient and accountable governance of any university; prescribing minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of Vice-Chancellor of any university; prescribing norms and principles for allocation of grants for a State University.

(8) Section 26 empowers the Commission to recommend, a panel of five names from National Registry maintained under this Act, for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of a State University.

(9) Section 26(4) – No persons shall be eligible for appointment as Vice Chancellor of any University unless his name is included in the National Registry for appointment as Vice-chancellor.

(10) As per Section 32, no university, empowered by law to award any degree or diploma established after this act has come into force, shall commence its first academic operation unless it is authorized in accordance with such norms specified by regulations.

(11) Under Section 36, The commission can revoke the authorization for failure to comply with the regulations.

(12) Under Section 41, the right to confer degrees or diplomas shall be exercised only by an institution or university authorized under this Act.

The States will not have powers to appoint Vice-Chancellors for Universities created by States

The Act applies to all institutions including State Universities and Deemed universities (except institutions of ‘agricultural and medical education’), which confers degrees or diplomas. The power of appointment of VCs is taken away from the States/Governors; The Appointing Authority has no power to choose the VC. The State government can only select one from the “five names” given by the commission.

Shifting of “Education” from Concurrent List to Central list without any Constitutional Amendment

Even a State University, e.g. Madras University, can be wound up. No person shall be appointed as VC of any State university unless his name was found in the list of names furnished by the Registry. That has the effect of shifting the entry of “Education” from List III to List I without actually amending the Constitution. This is contrary to the principle of State Autonomy. It has effect of making India as a Unitary State.

Supreme Court may not approve
this bill

The above provisions definitely falls within the meaning of incorporation, regulation and winding up of the universities. It is difficult to comprehend how the Bill can be introduced in Parliament and made as a law. The provisions contained in the Bill militates against the express provisions of the constitution and the concept of separation of powers and the doctrine of immunity of instrumentality. The Bill lacks legislative competency. The Bill, if made as law, will not get the approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the entire Act may even be struck down by the Supreme Court.

The National Commission for Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010 lacks legislative competency. The Bill, if made as law, will not get the approval from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the entire Act may even be struck down by the Supreme Court.

(Courtesy: The Rising Sun -
14th March,2010) / Posted on May, 2010

Reposted from The Modern Rationalist (http://www.modernrationalist.com/2010/may/page11.html)

–

अयोध्या में विवादित स्थल के मालिकाना हक पर इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ पीठ के फैसले को लेकर राजनेताओं, प्रशासन और मीडिया उपक्रमों की बयानबाजियों-लफ्फाजियों ने अनायास ही इस सामान्य से न्यायिक निर्णय को ‘सदी का सबसे बड़ा फैसला’ बताते हुए पूरे देश में आम लोगों को गुमराह करने की साजिश खुले आम रच डाली है। ध्यान रखिये कि ये वही ताकतें हैं जिन्होंने पहले भी इस मुद्दे को बेवजह तूल देकर राष्ट्रीय जीवन में अविश्वास और घृणा का जहर घोला था।

आने वाला यह फैसला कैसे बड़ा है? गवाहियों की संख्या के हिसाब से? इस तक पहुंचने में लगे समय के लिहाज से ? या फिर, लोगों को गुमराह किए जाने संभावनाओं के पैमाने से? विश्व इतिहास में ही नहीं संभवतः भारतीय इतिहास में भी इस मुकदमे से ज्यादा लम्बे समय तक चले और इससे ज्यादा गवाहों को मौका देने वाले मुकदमे मौजूद हैं।

फिर किस बात का बड़ा फैसला? क्या ये बड़ा फैसला-बड़ा फैसला ढोल पीटने वाले नहीं जानते कि यह अंतिम फैसला नहीं है? इससे असहमत पक्ष सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाने के लिए स्वतंत्र होगा? जब अंतिम फैसला तक नहीं है, तो बड़ा किस बात का? और ये जो राजनेता शांति की अपीलों की बौछार कर रहे हैं, ये क्या है? आपको इस बात की आशंका ही क्यों है कि अशांति होगी? और आशंका है तो उसे रोकने के लिए क्या जरूरी प्रशासनिक उपाय कर लिए गए हैं? अगर नहीं, तो वे उपाय कीजिए? आपके पास कोई आत्मबल हो तब तो आप समझेंगे कि लोग उतने मूर्ख नहीं हैं जितना आप समझते हैं? क्या इन राजनीतिक दलों के नेताओं में से किसी में गांधी जैसा नैतिक बल है कि लोग उसकी बात मानने को मजबूर हों? किसी का आचरण इतना शफ्फाक है कि लोग उसे अपने आदर्श के रूप में देखना पसंद करें? बेइमानियों, लूट-खसोट और लोगों को बांटने के साथ ही पूरे राष्ट्र को आतंकित करके सत्ता में बैठे रहने का जतन करने रहने वाले इन लोगों की अपीलों का क्या अर्थ है? क्या इन्हें इतना भी पता नहीं कि किसी बात पर जरूरत से ज्यादा सतर्कता बरतने को कहना दरअसल नुकसान को दावत देने जैसा होता है? फैसला आने के अंदेशे में यह अतिरंजित प्रतिक्रिया क्यों की जा रही है?

इनसे भी एक हाथ आगे हैं मेरे वे दोस्त जो खुद को पत्रकार और सम्पादक मानते नहीं अघाते? खास तौर पर नए माध्यम में बैठे लोग- जिनकी पत्रकारीय आंख भी तब नहीं खुली थी जब इस मुद्दे पर मुठ्ठी भर लोगों की साजिश ने पूरे देश को एक बेहूदा दौर में झोंक दिया था। आप आश्वासन दे रहे हैं जिम्मेदार आचरण का और करते हैं निहायत गैर-जिम्मेदाराना हरकत? आपके प्रस्तोता अपने कायर्क्रम के दौरान फेफड़ों में जितनी हवा भर सकते हैं और आवाज में जितनी लरजिश पैदा कर सकते हैं उसके साथ अपने कायर्क्रमों को बेचने में जुटे हैं। ये रिसर्च, वो मोन्टाज, ये विश्लेषण, वो बयान और जाने क्या-क्या..। मानो, अदालत का फैसला न हुआ प्रलय के आने की सूचना हो गई।

टीवी वाले ही क्यों, अखबारों ने भी क्या कसर छोड़ रखी है? सुबह अखबारों का बंडल खोला तो एक बड़े सम्पादक जी अपने अखबार के ऊपरी हिस्से में शांति, संयम, प्रगति, और भारतीय परम्परा की खिचड़ी पकाते मिले। वे समझते होंगे कि लोगों को याद नहीं होगा कि जब वे रिपोर्टर थे तब उन्होंने अपने नामचीन हिंदी अखबार को दूसरे हिंदी अखबार से बड़ा बनाने की होड़ में बिना इतना कुछ हुए रामभक्तों के रक्त से सरयू का पानी लाल करवा दिया था और ट्रकों में भर कर लाशें अयोध्या से काफी आगे सरयू (घाघरा) में बहवा दी थीं? उनका अखबार खूब उछला? जवाबी कार्रवाई में दूसरे अखबार ने जो करना था सो किया? रिपोर्टर साहब को इनाम मिला? दूसरे अखबार को भी इनाम मिला? लुटा पिटा तो देश.. और वे मच्छर-भुनगे लोग जिनके होने न होने से कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता।

फिर वैसी ही घड़ी बनाने की साजिश का इन लोगों को मौका मिला है। जिन्हें बीस साल पहले का दौर ढंग से याद नहीं और जो इन बीस सालों में देश में आए बदलावों को जानने से रह गए हों उन्हें भी एक बार फिर से ‘टीप’  मारने की इन कोशिशों को लोगों की खुली आंखे शायद ही सफल होने दें। हां, आंख में धूल झोंक कर कोई धौल जमा जाए तो अलग बात है?

एक बात और इस फैसले के बाबत!  मालिकाना हक पर अदालत का फैसला जो भी हो उससे अलग एक सवाल यह है कि जब किसी विवादग्रस्त स्थान पर आम आदमी तक नहीं रहना चाहता तो वहां ईश्वर कैसे रह सकता है ? उस जगह पर कोई मसजिद कैसे बन सकती है जब किसी विवादित स्थान पर अदा की गई नमाज कुबूल ही नहीं हो सकती? और, कोई मंदिर कैसे बन सकता है जब किसी अशांत और विवादित स्थान पर किसी देव प्रतिमा की प्राण-प्रतिष्ठा ही नहीं की जा सकती? या मंदिर बनाने के लिए यज्ञ के समय शांति मंत्रों का उच्चारण करने भर से वहां शांति स्थापित हो जाएगी? जब वहां इन दोनों में से कुछ हो ही नहीं सकता तो झगड़ा किस बात का है? नाक का ? ..  तो पिनोशियो की नाक बहुत लम्बी थी, लेकिन उसकी वजह से हर वक्त कोई न कोई मुसीबत बनी रहती थी…। पिनोशियो बनने से बाज आइये… नाक कटती है तो कट जाने दीजिए वरना तो यह अंतहीन सिलसिला है जो हमारे-आपके बाद की पीढियों में जाकर खत्म हो तो हो।

इसे अपलोड करने के पहले अदालत अपना फैसला सुना चुकी है और लोक तथा राष्ट्रीय सहमति की जितनी संभावना इस फैसले के साथ पैदा हुई है शायद उतनी इससे पहले कभी न रही हो। लेकिन जो असहमत ही रहना चाहते हैं उन्हें इससे क्या?

Late Shri BBL Asthana

मेरे पिता!

मुझे नहीं पता कि मैं कैसे मांगू

अपनी अनगिनत गलतियों की माफी

जो मैंने की थीं, तुम्हारे प्रति

अब जबकि तुम उपस्थित नहीं हो स्थूल में।

तुमने मुझे पाला था अपनी पलकों पर

नाचते थे मुझे लेकर

ताने भी सुनते थे कि सिर चढ़ा रखा है

मेरे हर काम में तु्म्हें

दिख ही जाती थी कोई न कोई अच्छाई

जो दुनिया के किसी और लड़के में नहीं थी

तुम्हारे सपनों के केंद्र में मेरे सिवा कुछ भी तो नहीं था

भोर में मंत्रों की भुनभुनाहट के बीच

मुझे जगाते हुए, या

फिर देर रात अपनी दिनचर्या समाप्त करने के पहले

किसी न किसी वजह से मुझे बुलाते हुए

कुछ तो था जो तुम नहीं बांटते थे औरों से।

आज के दौर जैसे पिता-पुत्र नहीं थे हम

न ही थे पुराने दौर के पिता-पुत्रों जैसे हमारे रिश्ते।

तुमने ही बोया था मुझमें सत्यनिष्ठा और तर्क का पौधा

तुम्हीं से सीखा होगा मैंने आंख मूंद कर सहमत न होना

तुम्हीं ने सिखाया था गर्व से जीना और

अपने तर्कों को कसौटी पर कसते हुए दृढ़ता से उन पर टिके रहना।

समय रहते, मैं ही नहीं सीख पाया था

तर्कों के घेरे से ऊपर उठना

तीव्र प्रवाह के बीच पड़ने वाले भंवरों से

बच कर आगे निकल जाना।

 मेरे पिता प्रिय! क्षमायाची हूं

उन हजारों बातों के लिए जिन्हें समझ

नहीं पाया था, समझने के वक्त।

क्षमायाची हूं तुम्हारी हजारों प्रेमिल अपेक्षाओं को

पूरा करने की परवाह तक न करने की।

तुम्हारी जिन तकलीफों को समझ नहीं पाता था तब

वे सब समझ में आती हैं तुम्हारे पोते-पोतियों का पिता बन कर।

प्राकृतिक न्याय की गलियों से गुजर कर

पहुंच सका मैं जिन सत्यों की तह तक

उन तक समय से पहुंचने का धैर्य रहा होता मुझमें

तो न पहुंचती पीड़ा तुम्हें अपने प्रिय पुत्र के कारण।

मैं जानता हूं कि आधी रात के एकांत में भी

की होती क्षमा याचना तो न केवल मुझे करते क्षमा

बल्कि जगा लेते पूरे शहर को यह बताने के लिए कि

तुमने माफ कर दिया है अपने बेटे को उसके सभी अपराधों के लिए।

हे पिता, मैं क्षमादान और प्रेम की याचना करता हूं

सावर्जनिक रूप से ताकि लोग जान लें कि

मेरे पिता को है मुझसे अथाह और अविरल प्रेम।

श्रीकांत

New Delhi, May 6: A Supreme Court bench today once again rejected the HRD ministry plea for injunction against fresh admissions by the Deemed to be University, particularly the 44 institutions negatively implicated in a review committee report. 

While hearing the Viplav Sharma vs. Government of India, UGC & others case today the bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the Ministry’s plea against fresh admissions by the deemed universities saying that it could not pass any such order as the validity of the very constitution of the high-powered Tondon Committee is under challenge. Next hearing in the case will be on August 3. 

“The constitution of the committee is itself under challenge, it has to be adjudicated first. There is no point in passing any injunction. It would not be appropriate for us to pass any injunction,” the bench said. Besides, the apex court pointed out that there were allegations that Professor Tondon himself was heading a deemed university and it was not appropriate for him to head the high-powered committee which sought de-recognition of the aggrieved universities. 

Though Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the government, pleaded that at least, a condition be imposed that any fresh admissions would be subject to the final outcome of the case pending in the apex court, the bench was in no mood to grant any relief to the Centre. 

The ministry’s similar plea had been rejected by the court earlier too. The HRD ministry has been adamant against the 44 deemed universities after its review committee under Prof. PN Tandon recommended de-recognition. The bench had also agreed to examine the validity of the government’s decision to de-recognise the varsities as the institutions claimed that under the statutory rules, it was only the UGC which has got the power to strip them of their deemed status. 

It is worth mentioning that the Tandon committee didn’t give its detailed report and the methodology used to arrive at its decision in assessment of the deemed universities on nine different aspects. 

Earlier the apex court had directed the Centre to put on the Internet the recommendations of the Tondon Committee and the Task Force. On March 8, the Supreme Court had on March 8 granted two weeks to the aggrieved varsities to file their responses on the Centre’s decision to de-recognise them. 

During earlier hearings the Union HRD Ministry had denied the allegations of the institutes that they were not given sufficient opportunity to explain their academic performance before deciding to de-recognise them. 

Stoutly defending its decision, the Centre, in its additional affidavit, had said its high-powered review committee and task force were more concerned with the academic excellence of these universities, rather than infrastructural facilities. The HRD ministry said the universities sought to be de-recognised were being run as family fiefdoms, rather than as institutions of academic excellence which they claim to be.

New Delhi. What may be called the first pro-student and pro-higher education step of the HRD ministry; it is contemplating a legislative proposal to restrict unfair practices in educational institutions. The proposal provides for punishing unrecognised institutions which claim to be recognised by statutory authorities and induce students to take admission. The HRD minister Kapil Sibal made such a statement in the Lok Sabha.

The minister Kapil Sibal informed Lok Sabha that there are in all 201 private institutions across the country which have been imparting technical and management courses without the mandatory approval from the All India Council for Technical Education,

These fake institutions include big names like Indian School of Business (ISB), Hyderabad; ICFAI Business School, Delhi, Gurgaon and Chandigarh; Ansal Institute of Technology, Gurgaon; Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), Delhi; K R Mangalam Global Institute of Management, New Delhi; J K Business School, Gurgaon; M B Birla Institute of Management, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bangalore; and Sikkim Manipal University, Bangalore.

Maharashtra tops the list with 74 such institutions followed by 24 in Delhi, 22 in Karnataka, 19 in Tamil Nadu and 13 each in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
According to laws of the land, no technical institution may be started and no new courses or programmes introduced without obtaining prior approval of the AICTE.

Besides, University Grants Commission has identified 21 fake universities running in violation of provisions of the UGC Act, the minister added. The 21 fake universities include eight in Uttar Pradesh and seven in Delhi.

Sibal said, UGC and AICTE give wide publicity to caution students and parents not to take admission in fake and unapproved institutions. He said. "Statutory bodies have also been advised to launch effective campaigns against such institutions which are fake and to take appropriate action under law. The media has also been requested to refuse to publish misleading advertisements by such institutions," Sibal said.

The minister’s statement in the Lok Sabha may be hailed as very urgently needed step. Most of the institutions which operate without abiding by the law create unrealistic brand images with the help of hugely funded advertisement campaigns in all sorts of media. They also use names of obscure foreign universities, their so-called tie-ups and legacies. These five-star education shops lure the students with their grand infrastructure, air-conditioned corridors and libraries and all sorts of cosmetic things to fleece the potential students to the tune of Rs. 10-15 lakhs. It is responsibility of the government to swing in action to save thousands of unsuspecting students’ lives.

April 29; New Delhi. The distance education students enrolled in various courses offered by the Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar may take a sigh of relief as the PTU was granted approval of ‘UGC-AICTE-DEC joint Committee’ for programs being offered through Distance Education Mode in its 35th meeting held on 10th March 2010 at New Delhi.

The approval also clarified the confusion created by the Union HRD minister Kapil Sibal that universities cannot offer courses beyond their jurisdiction. It was specified in the decision that Distance Education and Online Education ‘cannot have boundaries or state jurisdiction and therefore these programs should be offered as per the ACT and statues of the University.

The ministry of HRD through Gazette notification No.44 dated March 1, 1995 had stated that all the qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the Universities stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment in Central Government offices and for all purposes of Higher Education, provided it has been approved by Distance Education Council.

It is worth mentioning that the educationists and policymakers had understood the necessity and importance of distance education as early as ‘80s. They knew that it is of paramount importance in carrying the light of higher education further and deeper. Only after this kind of consensus in the Parliament, the Act to set up Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) was passed. The IGNOU Act, 1985 mandated upon the IGNOU to set up Distance Education Council (DEC) to coördinate, promote, assess and accredit institutions and programmes offered by open and distance learning system as also to prevent through such measures as are considered appropriate, institutions from offering sub-standard courses and programmes.

For around two decades, i.e. till May 2007, the DEC remained sole and independent body regulating the distance education in the country. This perhaps didn’t suit some quarters in the Ministry of Human Resource Development so a bubble of DEC-UGC-AICTE joint body was created without any legal or constitutional force behind it. It was apparently thrust upon the DEC to associate with the UGC and the AICTE without any such provision in the Acts under these bodies were constituted. This invalid addition of the UGC and AICTE in the function of the DEC was never ratified in any of the three bodies, yet the game of giving approvals in the name of this unconstitutional joint body has been going on for past almost three years.

In 2009, came the new clerics of education and education politics and they gave a new ‘firman’ on distance education. No one has in the past nine months or so challenged the so-called new policy. In the haste of issuing new orders, the authorities in the HRD ministry didn’t even go through the already existing Act and provisions. Sooner or later it would have to be cross-examined.

Not only the PTU, but many other universities which had been running programmes under distance education with DEC permission were thrown into a fix by a letter demanding re-approval to be sought from the joint body. The students, both enrolled and passed out, remain confused about validity of their degrees. All this was done in the name of ‘better coordination between the statuary bodies of higher education’. The confusion and unnecessary harassment of students and the universities shall continue until and unless the universities decide to take a stern stand and come out openly against the whimsical directives of the HRD ministry. They may choose their course of action against the situation, but one thing is sure that it’s not going to change on its own.

The overall expenditure per year to pursue the post- graduate programme at ISB in the academic term 2010-2012 will be Rs 20.2 lakh, including Rs 2.9 lakh for accommodation, books, laptop, alumni association membership and meals, which are optional. This is Rs 1.04 lakh more than the Rs 19.16 lakh it charged last year. Last year, the accommodation, books, laptop, alumni association membership fee and meals expenses worked out to Rs 2.66 lakh. The Rs 20.2 lakh figure does not include the expenses if the students stay with their families at the campus or have opted for a student exchange programme and other expenses. “This fee revision is merely an inflationary adjustment,” remarked a senior official from ISB. The annual intake at ISB is 570 students.

It may be recalled that the IIM-Ahmedabad, premier B-school, raised the fees for its post-graduate management programme (PGP) by Rs 1.2 lakh this week to Rs 13.7 lakh from Rs 12.5 lakh for the two-year course. The new fee structure has been worked out after weighing in the increase in costs due to implementation of Sixth Pay Commission’s recommendations, as well as general rise in operating costs due to inflation.