On Tuesday, the Supreme Court examined the issue of distance learning courses provided by state universities outside their territorial boundaries. This inquiry came in response to a petition filed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), which raised concerns regarding the legitimacy of degrees awarded to students who had enrolled in these courses after 2015.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) in India banned 19 online and open distance degree courses at several universities, triggering considerable reactions:
- UGC instructs colleges not to admit students to illegal courses.
- Impact on pupils: The judgment will impact lakhs of pupils, eliciting outrage from students and educators.
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Sri Venkateswara University, and Periyar University are affected. - Student and Professional Response: Working professional Shilpa Shinde criticizes the decision for hurting working women.
- IT professional Sachin Patil regrets the loss of convenient education.
- Student Rahul Natekar calls the move a step backward, citing the global trend toward online education.
- Academic Perspectives: Dr. Sandip Kale argues that the prohibition, intended to prevent malpractices, is unfair to legitimate students and institutions.
- Dr. Pandit Vidyasagar, however, supports the decision, highlighting the need of regular professional course study.
- UGC Chairman M Jagdish Kumar said the ban protects students from unauthorized and fraudulent courses.
On January 20, 2023, the Madras High Court made a crucial decision that impacted the futures of numerous students. In its ruling, the court upheld the validity of a UGC circular issued in August 2015. This circular specifically directed Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu, along with other private universities offering distance learning programs, to refrain from admitting students who resided beyond the territorial boundaries of the state.
The circular issued by the UGC was met with separate challenges by the universities in the high court. Throughout the legal proceedings, interim orders were passed at various intervals to safeguard the admissions process. However, on January 20, the high court delivered its final verdict, favoring the UGC’s stance. Despite this, the court ensured that students who had already enrolled in distance learning courses under the protection of interim orders would be safeguarded.
The UGC’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, supported by Advocate Apoorv Kurup, presented an argument stating that the admissions should not be considered valid if the UGC circular had been upheld. They claimed that the interim orders would depend on the final outcome of the petitions filed by the respective universities. Therefore, according to their viewpoint, the admissions could not be deemed valid without taking into account the final resolution of the petitions.
The bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia has agreed to examine the matter and has served notices to Annamalai University, Indira Gandhi National Open University, the Tamil Nadu government, and several other private universities offering open distance learning across the nation.
While issuing the notice, the court showed curiosity in knowing the specific courses in which these students had enrolled. Mehta, representing the UGC, informed the Supreme Court that professional degree programs, such as engineering, cannot be effectively taught through distance learning.
“The High Court, by acknowledging the authority of the petitioner (UGC) to enact regulations limiting the operation of open distance learning programs beyond state boundaries, should not have validated the degrees granted to the affected students based solely on interim orders in their favor,” argued the UGC in its petition.
In its ruling, the High Court stated, “We want to clarify that this decision will not impact students who have already completed their courses in accordance with the court’s interim orders… Students who have enrolled in programs under the protection of the court’s interim orders will remain safeguarded, and their degrees will remain valid.”
According to the UGC, its 2015 circular was founded on a Supreme Court judgment from 2005, titled ‘Professor Yashpal vs State of Chhattisgarh.’ In this case, the court ruled that the territorial jurisdiction of state universities is restricted to their respective territorial boundaries.
The UGC’s letter mandated that all state universities cease the operation of off-campus/study centers/affiliated colleges or centers through franchises outside their territorial boundaries.
The UGC contended that the High Court made a mistake by validating the registrations and degrees of students who have successfully finished their courses. This is because the universities had admitted students without obtaining the necessary recognition for the courses offered in the distance learning mode.
