A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision of the Supreme Court in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology & Ors. authoritatively clarifies the scope of statutory powers of a State Technical University to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation of additional courses, even in the interregnum period prior to the framing of University Statutes. The judgment addresses an important institutional conflict between university autonomy and regulatory oversight by the All India Council for Technical Education.

The Court decisively rejects the view that, in the absence of formally notified Statutes, the Syndicate of the University becomes functus officio in matters of affiliation. It holds that the power of the Syndicate to prescribe norms flows directly from the parent Act and is not contingent upon the existence of Statutes. The Court further delineates the correct interpretation of Section 14(6) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, holding that the Vice-Chancellor’s interim regulatory power cannot eclipse the statutory authority of the Syndicate.

On the second limb, the judgment reaffirms settled constitutional doctrine that while universities cannot dilute minimum standards prescribed by AICTE, they are legally entitled to impose enhanced norms in furtherance of academic excellence. The Court critically examines post-2012 AICTE regulatory practice based on online self-disclosure and underscores the continuing responsibility of universities towards students and institutional reputation. The ruling restores institutional balance, strengthens university autonomy, and harmonises regulatory federalism in technical education.

Keywords: University autonomy; AICTE; Affiliation norms; Statutory interpretation; Technical education regulation

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment arises in the backdrop of rapid expansion and subsequent saturation of self-financing engineering institutions in the State of Kerala. Statistical decline in student intake and academic performance compelled the State to adopt a more regulatory approach towards technical education. To institutionalise academic standards, the State enacted the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, with a clear statutory mandate “to regulate technical education in the State” . The University was vested with supervisory and affiliating powers over engineering institutions previously affiliated to multiple universities.

A critical issue emerged during the transitional phase when the University had been constituted under the Act but its Statutes had not yet been notified. During this period, the Syndicate framed norms governing affiliation of additional courses, drawing from academic audits, student performance metrics, and intake ratios. These norms were challenged by self-financing colleges on the ground that, in the absence of Statutes, the Syndicate lacked authority and only the Vice-Chancellor could act under Section 14(6).

The Kerala High Court Division Bench accepted this contention, holding the Syndicate resolutions ultra vires and restricting the University from imposing conditions beyond AICTE norms. This interpretation significantly curtailed university autonomy and elevated AICTE approvals to a determinative status. The appeal before the Supreme Court thus raised foundational questions on statutory interpretation, separation of regulatory powers, and constitutional distribution of legislative competence between the Union and States in the field of education.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent, a self-financing engineering college affiliated to the appellant University, sought affiliation for a new B.Tech course in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science for the academic year 2020–21. Approval from AICTE was obtained under the AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2020–21, which operated on an online self-disclosure mechanism. Parallelly, an application for affiliation was submitted to the University along with requisite fees.

Meanwhile, based on empirical data revealing high vacancy rates and declining academic outcomes, the State Government issued G.O. (Rt) No.1039/2019/HEDN dated 22.06.2019, prescribing conditions such as NBA accreditation and minimum intake thresholds for starting new courses. Acting upon these policy concerns, the University Syndicate resolved on 04.02.2020 to prescribe additional affiliation norms, later refined in its meeting dated 24.06.2020. These included minimum pass percentages of outgoing students, academic audit ratings, and average intake levels.

The respondent college, failing to meet these benchmarks, was denied affiliation and consequently approached the Kerala High Court. While the Single Judge partially upheld the Syndicate’s authority, the Division Bench overturned this finding, holding that in the absence of Statutes, the Syndicate lacked power and that the University could not go beyond AICTE norms. This reasoning precipitated the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Syndicate of the University had statutory authority to prescribe norms for affiliation of additional courses in the absence of notified Statutes?

ii. Whether Section 14(6) of the University Act excludes the exercise of powers by the Syndicate during absence of Statutes?

iii. Whether a State University can prescribe enhanced norms beyond those stipulated by AICTE?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant University submitted that Section 30(2)(iii) of the University Act is the substantive source of power enabling the Syndicate to prescribe norms for affiliation. This power flows directly from the Act and is merely regulated, not created, by Statutes. The absence of Statutes does not denude the Syndicate of its statutory competence. It was further argued that Section 14(6) is an enabling provision for interim regulation and cannot override or nullify powers expressly vested in the Syndicate. On AICTE norms, reliance was placed on Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder and Modern Dental College, asserting that prescribing higher standards is constitutionally permissible.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent college contended that Section 63(2) mandates consideration of applications for additional courses strictly in accordance with Statutes. In their absence, only the Vice-Chancellor could act under Section 14(6) with Board approval. It was further submitted that AICTE Regulations constitute a complete code and any additional conditions imposed by the University would be repugnant to central law, relying on Jaya Gokul Educational Trust and Rungta Engineering College.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. It held that the High Court fundamentally misconstrued the statutory scheme. The Court clarified that Section 63(2) governs the procedure for grant of affiliation but does not address the power to prescribe norms. That power flows independently from Section 30(2)(iii). The absence of Statutes merely implies absence of codified procedure, not absence of authority .

The Court rejected the interpretation of Section 14(6) adopted by the High Court, holding that it does not render the Syndicate powerless. The Vice-Chancellor’s interim powers are subject to subsequent approval by the appropriate authority, which in affiliation matters is the Syndicate itself. On AICTE norms, the Court reaffirmed that universities may prescribe enhanced standards, especially to protect students and institutional integrity. The decision in Rungta Engineering College was declared not reflective of correct law.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment is that statutory powers expressly conferred by the parent Act cannot be rendered inoperative due to absence of subordinate legislation. The Syndicate’s power under Section 30(2)(iii) exists independently of Statutes and is only subject to limitations expressly provided in the Act. Further, universities are constitutionally competent to impose standards higher than AICTE minima, provided such standards do not dilute central norms.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court made significant observations on the limitations of AICTE’s post-2012 self-disclosure regime, noting that penal action against institutions with false declarations does not compensate affected students. Universities, being degree-awarding bodies, bear reputational and academic responsibility and therefore cannot be reduced to passive affiliates.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Universities may prescribe enhanced affiliation norms consistent with statutory objectives.
ii. Absence of Statutes does not suspend statutory powers under the parent Act.
iii. AICTE approvals do not automatically entitle institutions to university affiliation.
iv. Affiliation norms may validly consider academic outcomes and intake performance.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment restores doctrinal clarity on university governance and reinforces academic federalism. It affirms that regulatory bodies and universities must operate in a complementary, not hierarchical, relationship. By upholding the authority of universities to enforce higher academic standards, the Court prioritises student welfare and institutional credibility over mechanical compliance. The ruling serves as a precedent against regulatory minimalism and underscores that excellence, not mere approval, is the governing principle of higher education regulation.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, 1964 SCR 368
ii. State of A.P. v. K. Purushotham Reddy, [2003] 2 SCR 832
iii. Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder, [2011] 2 SCR 1007
iv. Modern Dental College v. State of M.P., [2016] 3 SCR 579

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015
ii. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987