AMAN JAISWAL S/O SHYAM BIHARI PRASAD JAISWAL v. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR AND OTHERS
Discusses the interpretation and mandatory nature of UGC regulations and the principles of natural justice.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:13158-DB
Decision Date: 28-11-2025
List of Laws
University Grants Commission Act, 1956; University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023; General Principles of Law
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956: The judgment discusses Section 26(1)(g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, noting that the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 were made in exercise of powers conferred under this clause. This is significant because it establishes the legal basis for the UGC's authority to create regulations regarding student grievances. The practical implication is that institutions must adhere to these regulations, as they are backed by the force of law. The judgment also refers to Section 14 of the Act, which outlines the "Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission". It states that failure to comply with regulations made under Section 26(g) may result in the withholding of grants from the University. This interpretation reinforces the mandatory nature of the UGC regulations and provides a clear consequence for non-compliance, creating a strong incentive for universities to implement the recommendations of the SGRC. The key takeaway is that universities cannot ignore SGRC recommendations without risking financial penalties.
- University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023: The judgment extensively discusses the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023, particularly Regulation 5, which pertains to the constitution and functions of the Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRC). The court emphasizes that clause (viii) of Regulation 5 mandates the SGRC to send its report with recommendations to the competent authority and a copy to the aggrieved student. The court interprets this clause as not requiring approval from the competent authority, but rather as a directive to forward the recommendations for implementation. This is a significant interpretation because it clarifies the role of the competent authority as facilitators rather than approvers of the SGRC's recommendations. The judgment also refers to Regulation 10, which outlines the "CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE". The court notes that non-compliance with the recommendations of the SGRC can lead to multiple actions against the institution, including withdrawal of grants and declaring the institution ineligible for certain programs. This reinforces the mandatory nature of the SGRC recommendations and provides a strong incentive for compliance. The practical implication is that institutions must take SGRC recommendations seriously and implement them in good faith.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment touches upon the principles of natural justice, specifically in the context of the SGRC's proceedings. It notes that clause (vii) of Regulation 5 mandates the SGRC to follow principles of natural justice when considering grievances. This is significant because it ensures that students are treated fairly and have an opportunity to be heard before any decisions are made that affect them. The practical implication is that the SGRC must conduct its proceedings in a fair and impartial manner, giving all parties an opportunity to present their case.
🔒 For Members Only