PRANEETH K. AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.

[2020] 8 S.C.R. 917

PRANEETH K. AND ORS.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 724 of 2020)

AUGUST 28, 2020

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions:

Guidelines dated 06.07.2020, issued by University GrantsCommission (UGC) – Directing the Universities/ Colleges to completeterminal semester/ final year examinations by 30.9.2020 – Ministryof Human Resource Development by OM dated 06.07.2020formulated SOP for conducting the examinations as per the UGCGuidelines which was settled by Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare – Ministry of Home Affairs permitting to conduct theexamination – State of Maharashtra as well as Maharashtra StateDisaster Management Authority, in view of situation due to pandemicCOVID-19 took decision not to hold examination for the final yearcourses and to promote the students on the basis of previousperformance and internal assessment of the students – Writ Petitionchallenging the UGC Guidelines and the Orders of Ministries beingultra vires Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Orders of State ofMaharashtra and State Disaster Management Authority alsochallenged – Held: The UGC Guidelines are statutory having beenissued in exercise of power u/s. 12 of the UGC Act – They are notbeyond the domain of UGC as they relate to co-ordination anddetermination of standards of education in institutions of highereducation – The Guidelines are in compliance with s. 12 of UGCAct – They are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and hence notviolative of Art. 14 – SOP for conducting the examinations showsthat UGC and the ministries are fully concerned with the health ofall the stakeholders and hence the Guidelines are not violative ofArt. 21 – The UGC Guidelines being referable to UGC Act, 1956which was enacted in reference to Entry 66 of List I of VII Schedule,shall have precedence as compared to any decision taken by theState – Therefore, the decision of the State and Disaster Management

ACommittee to promote Final year/ terminal semester examinationbeing not within domain of Disaster Management Act and beingcontrary to guidelines issued under Central enactment, cannot beupheld – However the OM and letter of Central Governmentpermitting for holding the examination shall not fetter the power ofthe State Disaster management Authority to take appropriateBmeasures to contain the pandemic – Hence, UGC Guidelines in sofar as it directs holding of examination by 30.09.2020 shall beoverridden by any contrary decision taken under DisasterManagement Act, 2005 – The State is at liberty to seek extention ofdeadline of 30.09.2020 – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 21CVII Schedule List I Entry 66; List II Entry 25 – University GrantsCommission Act, 1956 – s. 12 – Disaster Management Act, 2005.

University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

s. 12 – Interpretation of – Expression ‘other bodies’ used inopening part of the Section, would not include State DisasterDManagement Authority or health experts – It is not mandatory dutyof University Grants Commission to consult with the Universities orother bodies concerned, in all cases – The expression “inconsultation with Universities or other bodies concerned” has tobe read to mean where consultation is necessary.

EDisposing of the matters, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Education including university education, is aconcurrent subject where both State legislature as well asParliament have legislative competence. Entry 11 of List II ofSeventh Schedule of the Constitution, as existed prior toFConstitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 as well asEntry 25 of List III is subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of ListI, which is the Constitutional Scheme delineated by SeventhSchedule of the Constitution of India. [Para 49][953-C-D]

Gujarat University and Anr. v. Shri Krishna RanganathGMudholkar and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 703 : [1963] Suppl.SCR 112; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P.and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120; Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors.v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 90 : [1997] 2SCR 186 – followed.

Professor Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh andOrs. (2005) 5 SCC 420 : [2005] 2 SCR 23; Maa VaishnoDevi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradeshand Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 617 : [2012] 13 SCR 810–relied on.

1.2 Section 12 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956enumerates the functions of University Grants Commission andprovides that it shall be the general duty of the Commission totake, in consultation with the Universities or other bodiesconcerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotionand co-ordination of University education and for thedetermination and maintenance of standards of teaching,examination and research in Universities. The use of expression“examination” in Section 12 itself makes it clear that steps takenby the UGC under Section 12 may relate to the “examination aswell”. The standards of education in an institution depends onvarious factors, one of which includes “the standard ofexaminations held including the manner in which the papers areset and examined”. Therefore, the Guidelines dated 06.07.2020are not beyond the domain of the UGC and they relate to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of highereducation. [Paras 57 and 62][960-H; 961-A-B; 962-H]

Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Othersv. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016) 7 SCC353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579 – held inapplicable.

1.3 UGC being an expert body is entrusted with duty totake such steps as it may think fit for the determination andmaintenance of standards of teaching, examination and researchin the University. In academic matters unless there is clearstatutory violation, this Court shall keep their hands off sincethe issues fall within the domain of the experts. [Paras 54 and55][959-C, F]

University Grants Commission and Anr. v. Neha AnilBobde (Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519 – relied on.

2.1 The Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 contains academiccalendar suggested for the academic session 2019-2020 and datesfor conduct of examinations were also suggested as 01.07.2020

Ato 31.07.2020. It is true that Guidelines mentioned thatGuidelines are advisory in nature and each University may chartout its plan of action taking into consideration the issuespertaining to pandemic COVID-19. reading of the Guidelinesindicate that ample latitude was given to the Universities toconduct terminal/intermediate/ semester year examinations inBoffline and online mode. The Guidelines, however, cannot be readto mean that Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 left it to the wisdom ofthe Universities to either conduct terminal semester/final yearexaminations or not to conduct, which is clear from clauses 4 and5 of the Guidelines, under the heading “Examinations”. TheCGuidelines dated 29.04.2020 was issued for purpose and objectwith latitude to the Universities to chart their own plan/coursebut it cannot be said that Universities were not to follow theGuidelines on the pretext that it uses the expression “advisory”.[Para 65][965-E-H; 966-A-C]D2.2 The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 were issuedlooking to the situation that COVID-19 cases are still rising andlikely to increase further. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 infact grant further time requiring the completion of examinationby 30.09.2020. Looking into the substance of the Guidelines dated29.04.2020 and Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020, it is clearEthat Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are in continuation to the earlierGuidelines and not contrary to the earlier Guidelines. TheGuidelines were issued with the object that uniform academiccalendar be followed by all the Universities and final terminalsemester/final year examinations be held. With regard to

Fintermediate semester/year examination, the earlier UGCGuidelines dated 29.04.2020 have been continued even in theRevised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020. Therefore, the Guidelinesdated 06.07.2020 cannot be said to be contrary to the earlierGuidelines dated 29.04.2020. [Para 65][966-C-F]G2.3 Guidelines have been issued by the UGC in exercise ofpower under Section 12 of UGC Act. Section 12 provides that itshall be the general duty of the Commission to take all such stepsas it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of Universityeducation and for the determination and maintenance of standards

of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The words“all such steps” are of wide import. The steps referred to inSection 12 may include issuance of guidelines, directions, circularsetc. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has to be treated to havebeen issued in exercise of statutory powers vested in theCommission under Section 12. Guidelines issued in exercise ofstatutory powers, thus, cannot be said to be non-statutory.[Para 66][966-G-H; 967-A]

2.4 The University Grants Commission, in exercise ofpower under Section 26 sub-section (1) of the UGC Act havemade the Regulations namely, “the UGC (Minimum Standards ofInstruction for the Grant of the Master’s Degree through FormalEducation) Regulations, 2003”. Regulation 6 thereof deals with“examination and evaluation”. The statutory Regulation, 2003thus, categorically requires Universities to adopt the Guidelinesissued by the UGC, hence, it is the statutory duty of theUniversities to adopt the guidelines issued by the UGC. It is thestatutory obligation of the Universities to adopt the Guidelinesand the Guidelines cannot be ignored by terming it as non-statutory or advisory. [Paras 66 and 67][967-B-D]

Professor Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh andOrs. (2005) 5 SCC 420 – relied on.

3.1 The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have beenchallenged claiming that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution,as they discriminate between the students of Final year and First/Second year. The Final year/terminal semesters examinations areimportant because the learning process is dynamic interactionwhere the only way to figure out what students know is to seekevidence of their knowledge and to evaluate it. Performance inexamination especially Final year/terminal semester examinationare reflection of competence of the students. Terminal semester/Final year examination also provides an opportunity to thestudents to improve upon their overall score/marks which arevery crucial for academic excellence and opportunities ofemployment. Final year/terminal semester examination of under-Graduate or post-Graduate is an opportunity for student to showhis optimum calibre which pave his future career both in academics

Aand employment. The differentiation made by revised guidelinesto hold Final year/ Terminal semester examination has rationalbasis and there is an intelligible differentia between the studentof Final year/Terminal semester and other students. There is nounreasonableness or arbitrariness in the revised guidelines ofUniversity Grants Commission dated 06.07.2020 which requireBall Universities/ Collages to conduct at least the final year/terminalsemester examination.[Paras 68, 70 and 71][967-F; 968-A-D]

3.2 It is also not correct that the guidelines failed the testof Article 14 because they apply throughout India and being onefixed date i.e. 30.09.2020 irrespective of the conditions prevailingCin the individual States/Universities. Even the earlier guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 provided for an academic calendar whichmentioned 01.07.2020 to 15.07.2020 for conduct of Terminalsemester/Final year examination and 16.07.2020 to 31.07.2020for Intermediate semester/year examination. When the academic

Dcalendar is set, fixed dates are always given for uniformity. TheUGC had rightly fixed date for completion of the Terminalsemester/Final year examination throughout the country tomaintain uniformity in the academic calendar. The students wholook forward for admission in higher classes or take employmentrequire final degree for their career prospect and to maintainEuniformity in dates by which final examinations are over is withthe object of students welfare and for their career. [Paras 72 and73][968-F-H; 969-A-B]

3.3. The features in the revised guidelines clearly indicatethat expert body took measures in the interest of the studentsFand their academic career. The revised guidelines has grantedfurther time for completion of examination till end of September,2020, which was step to facilitate Universities and Colleges tocomplete their examination which was reasonable step in wakeof the Pandemic. The guidelines made the conduct of examinationGflexible by providing three modes of examination:(a) Offline (Penand Paper)(b) Online (c) Blended (Online + Offline). The revisedguidelines also made provision of examination through specialchance in case student of Terminal semester/Final year is unableto appear in the examination due to any reason. The provision

for giving special chance to appear in examination is also in theinterest of the students to protect those students who due to anyreason are unable to appear in the examination. The abovemeasures taken in the revised guidelines are reasonable and thecriticism of the guidelines that they are unreasonable andmanifestly arbitrary are without any substance. Thus the revisedguidelines are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia. [Para 75][969-C-H]

4.1 There can be no doubt that it is the duty of the State totake care of the health of its citizens. The various measures takenby the specified authorities under the Disaster Management Act,2005, are only with the object to contain the Pandemic and protectthe health of citizens of the country. The revised guidelines wereissued taking into consideration the fact that the number of covidcases are still rising and likely to increase further which fact hasbeen categorically mentioned in the beginning of the revisedguidelines itself. Further, clause 6 of the revised guidelinesspecifically provides that every University/Institution has toensure that it is prepared in all respect to carry out the academicactivity following necessary protocols, guidelines, directions,advisories issued by the Central/ State Government from time totime in view of Covid-19. The University Grants Commission isconscious of increasing number of covid cases throughout thecountry and the revised guidelines have extended the period forcompletion of examination from 31.07.2020 to 30.09.2020 whichwas only due to the reason that due to Pandemic, Universities/Colleges may not have been able to hold the examination. [Paras77, 78 and 79][970-C-F, H; 971-A]4.2 After issuance of revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020OM dated 06.07.2020, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment (MHRD), has issued detailed guidelines for conductof examination which guidelines were duly vetted by Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare(MoHFW). The guidelines for conductof examination were circulated by University Grants Commissionvide its letter dated 08.07.2020. Standard Operating Procedurefor conduct of examination makes it abundantly clear that UGC,MHRD, and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are fullyconcerned with the health of all stakeholders i.e. the students as

[2020] 8 S.C.R.

Awell as exam functionaries. Therefore, it cannot be said that therevised guidelines are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.[Paras 80, 81 and 82][971-C; 974-B-C]

5.1 Section 12 is part of Chapter III of UGC Act, 1956,which deals with “Powers and functions of the Commission”. TheBuse of the word ‘Universities or other bodies concerned’ in theopening part of the Section has been with purpose of referringthe Universities or other bodies concerned for whom the functionhas to be performed by. The enumerations given from clause (a)to (j) indicate that apart from Universities, the function also includeadvice to the Central Government or any State Government onCallocation of any grant to the Universities or advise CentralGovernment or any State Government or any Universities on anyquestion which may be referred to the Commission by the CentralGovernment or the State Government. Thus, the expression‘other bodies’ used in the opening part of the Section is inDreference to other bodies apart from Universities enumerated inSection 12. ‘Other bodies’ as used in Section 12 would not includeState Disaster Management Authority or health experts. Section12 never contemplated any such “bodies”. Furthermore, the StateDisaster Management Authority came into existence only afterenactment of Disaster Management Act, 2005, no such conceptEwas there when the UGC Act, 1956 was enacted. The use of theword ‘concerned’ after ‘Universities or other bodies’ has specificpurpose and meaning. The consultation with the Universities orother bodies concerned was in reference to particular functionwhich was enumerated in clause (a) to (j) and it has specificFreference and “Universities” or “other bodies” were referredto in the above context. Section 12 cannot be interpreted in amanner that for taking any measure with regard to coordinationof university education and for determination and maintenanceof standards of teaching examination in the Universities, the UGCshould consult each and every University of each and every StateGand only then, such measures can be taken. Reading the provisionin above manner shall make the functioning of UGC unworkable.There are more than nine hundred Universities in the countryand to require UGC to consult more than nine hundredUniversities for taking any measure will make the functioningHimpossible and impractical. [Paras 84, 86 and 87][974-H; 977-C-H; 978-A-B]

5.2 Section 12 cannot be interpreted in manner that fortaking any steps by the UGC, there is mandatory requirementof consultation of all the States/Universities failing which nomeasures can be taken by the University Grants Commission.Clause (j) of Section 12 is couched in very vide manner whichempower the Commission to perform such other functions asmay be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by theCommission for advancing the cause of higher education in Indiaor as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the abovefunction. Any function which may be deemed necessary by theCommission can be performed. For performance of its functionby the Commission, the Commission of its own is fully competentto take decisions, issue any directions, guidelines, etc. TheCommission may take assistance of any Committee of experts indischarge of its functions for which there is no prohibition in thestatutory scheme. [Para 88][978-B-E]5.3 The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 12makes it clear that for the purposes of performing its functionsunder the Act as enumerated in clause (a) to (j), it is not mandatoryduty of the Commission to consult with the Universities or otherbodies concerned in all cases e.g. while allocating and disbursingout of the fund of the Commission, grants to the Universities asenumerated in sub-clause (b) and (c). It is not necessary to consultthe university to whom the grant is to be allocated and disbursed.The expression “in consultation with the Universities or otherbodies concerned” has to be read to mean where consultationwith Universities or other bodies concerned is necessary withoutwhich the Commission is unable to perform its functions.[Para 90][979-D-F]

5.4 The impugned revised Guidelines have been issuedafter report of an expert committee consisting of academiciansand experts. The UGC is empowered to perform such otherfunctions as may be deemed necessary by the Commission. Ifthe Commission felt it necessary to issue Guidelines afterobtaining report from the expert committee, no exception canbe taken to the procedure adopted by the Commission. TheGuidelines dated 29.04.2020 as well as revised guidelines dated06.07.2020 are general in nature and not confined to any particular

Auniversity or any particular state. Hence, it cannot be said thatUGC is obliged to consult all Universities or States beforeissuance of the guidelines. Therefore, guidelines dated 06.07.2020cannot be said to be violative of Section 12 of UGC Act, 1956.[Paras 92-94][980-B-E]

B6.1 The Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers theState Disaster Management Authority as well as the StateGovernment to take decision for prevention and mitigation of adisaster and the action taken by the authorities under the DisasterManagement Act have been given overriding effect to achievethe purpose and object of the Act. In case of disaster the priorityCof all authorities under the Disaster Management Act is toimmediately combat the disaster and contain it to save humanlife. Saving of life of human being is given paramount importanceand the Act, 2005 gives primacy, priority to the actions andmeasures taken under the Act over inconsistency in any otherDlaw for the time being in force. [Para 99][984-F-H]

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772 :[2014] 9 SCR 1063 – referred to.

6.2 perusal of the OM dated 06.07.2020 indicates thatthe Ministry of Home Affairs has agreed to the request of theEMinistry of Human Resource Development and grantedexemption for the opening of educational institutions for thepurpose of holding examinations/ evaluation work for Final TermExaminations of the Universities/Institutions. The said OM aswell as letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be read toFmean that it fettered the jurisdiction of the State Authority totake decision considering the situation in State with regard toconduct of examinations. The cumulative effect of OM dated06.07.2020 and letter dated 06.07.2020 shall be that Governmentof India granted exemption for holding the examinations whichshall be treated as exception to the guidelines dated 29.06.2020Gissued by the Ministry of Home Affairs where Schools, Colleges,educational and coaching institutions were to remain closed till31.07.2020. The said OM and letter dated 06.07.2020 permittingholding the examinations shall not fetter the power of the State

Disaster Management Authority to take appropriate measuresto contain the Disaster in the State. [Para 103][987-H; 988-A-C]

6.3 With regard to conduct of examinations, the Stateauthorities are competent to assess the situation in particularState regarding possibility of holding of examinations. No Stateshall permit health of its subject to be compromised that is whyoverriding power has been given to the State DisasterManagement Authority and the State Government with regard toany inconsistency with any other law for the time being in force.There are no orders or directions in the guidelines of the NationalDisaster Management Authority or National ExecutiveCommittee fettering the powers of the State DisasterManagement Authority and State Government to take decisionas to whether examinations by physical mode be permitted inparticular State looking to the situation in the State. Coming tothe guidelines dated 06.07.2020 of the UGC insofar as it directscompletion of final examinations by 30.09.2020 which directionis overridden by the decision of the State Disaster ManagementAuthority and State Government where it resolved not to holdthe examinations. Thus, the direction of the University GrantsCommission in its revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 insofar itdirects the Universities and colleges to complete the final year/terminal examinations by 30.09.2020 shall be overridden by anycontrary decision taken by State Disaster Management Authorityor the State Government exercising power under the DisasterManagement Act, 2005. [Para 104][988-G-H; 989-A-C]

7.1 University Grants Commission Act has been enactedin reference to Entry 66 of List I. The States although havelegislative competence to legislate on education includingUniversities but the State Legislation is subject to Entry 66 ListI. The revised guidelines issued by UGC are statutory andreferable to University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and shallhave precedence as compared to any inconsistent decision takenby the State. The purpose and object of the Disaster ManagementAct, 2005 is management of disasters and for matters connectedtherewith. The Disaster Management is continuous andintegrated process of planning,organising, coordinating andimplementing measures. [Para 107][991-D-F]

ABC

A7.2 The exercise of powers by the State DisasterManagement Authority or by the State Government which shallhave overriding effect under Section 72 are those exercise ofjurisdiction which are within the four corners of the DisasterManagement Act, 2005. When the State Disaster ManagementAuthority and State Government take decision that for mitigationBor prevention of disaster it is not possible to hold physicalexamination in the State, the said decision was within the fourcorners of Disaster Management Act, 2005. However, thedecision of the Disaster Management Authority or the StateGovernment that students should be promoted without appearingCin the final year/terminal semester examination, is not within thedomain of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The decision topromote students and grant Degree by State if contrary to anyCentral enactment or guidelines issued thereunder the Centralenactment and the guidelines thereunder shall have precedenceby virtue of the same being referable to Entry 66 List I. Thus,Dthe State Disaster Management Authority and the StateGovernment has no jurisdiction to take decision that thestudents of final year/terminal examination should be promotedon the basis of earlier years assessment and internal assessmentwhereas the UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 directedEspecifically to conduct final year/terminal semester examination.The UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 in the above respect shalloverride the decision of the State Government and the StateDisaster Management Authority regarding promoting thestudents, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the DisasterManagement Act, 2005 and shall have no protection of SectionF72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The decision of theState or the State Disaster Management Authority being contraryto revised guidelines of the University Grants Commission cannotbe upheld and has to give way to the guidelines of UGC which isthe Authority to issue guidelines for determination andGmaintenance of standards of education and teaching of theUniversities. [Para 109][992-D-H; 993-A-B]

8. The prayer to quash the revised guidelines dated06.07.2020 issued by the University Grants Commission and OMdated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministry of Human ResourceH

Development and letter dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministryof Home Affairs is refused. [Para 111(1)][995-C-D]

9. The decision taken by the State Disaster ManagementAuthority/State not to hold final year/terminal semesterexamination by 30.09.2020 in exercise of power under DisasterManagement Act, 2005 shall prevail over deadline fixed by theUniversity Grants Commission i.e. 30.09.2020 in respect to theconcerned State. [Para 111(2)][995-D-E]

10. The decision of the State/State Disaster ManagementAuthority to promote the students in the final year/terminalsemester on the basis of previous performance and internalassessment being beyond the jurisdiction of DisasterManagement Act, 2005 has to give way to the guidelines of UGCdated 06.07.2020 directing to hold examination of final year/terminal semester. The State and University cannot promote thestudents in the final year/terminal semester without holding finalyear/terminal examination. [Para 111(3)][995-F]

11. If any State/Union Territory in exercise of jurisdictionunder Disaster Management Act, 2005 has taken decision thatit is not possible to conduct the final year/terminal semesterexamination by 30.09.2020, liberty is granted to such State/UnionTerritory to make an application to the University GrantsCommission for extending deadline of 30.09.2020 for that State/Union Territory which shall be considered by UGC andrescheduled date be communicated to such State/Union Territoryat the earliest. [Para 111(4)][995-G-H; 996-A]

Case Law Reference

[2020] 8 S.C.R.

A[2016] 3 SCR 579

held inapplicablePara 58

[2014] 9 SCR 1063

referred to

Para 99

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.724 of 2020.

BUnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India

With

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 739,746, 745, 741, 794, 814, 862, 861 of2020 and SLP(C) No. 10042 of 2020.

Tushar Mehta, SG, Ashok Parija, Adv. Gen., Dr. Abhishek ManuCSinghvi, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Shyam Divan, JaideepGupta, P.S. Narasimha, Vinay Navare, K.V. Vishwanathan, Arvind Datar,Kishore Dutta, Mihir Desai, Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Advs., Raj Kamal, SanjayKr. Dubey, Aavishkar Singhvi, Malak Bhatt, Aseem Atwal, KartavyaBatra, Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Ms. AnubhaDShrivastava Sahai, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Anannya Ghosh,Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Nikhil Ranjan, Ms. Pratyushi Mehta, PranayaGoyal, Raghunath Chakaraborty, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. MaitrayeeBanerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Kishor Lambat (for M/s. Lambat AndAssociates), Shivankar Sharma, Talha Abdul Rahman, Kushagra Pandey,Mohd. Shaz Khan, Udit Atul Konkanthankar, Pulkit Tare, Dr. UdayEPrakash Warunjikar, Abhay Anil Anturkar, C. George Thomas, SurendraKumar Gangele, Ms. Ritu Gangele, Ms. Swagoti Batchas, SPM Tripathi,V.K. Shukla, Satish Kumar, Apoorv Kurup, G.S. Makker, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,Siddharth Nigotia, Ms. Upama Bhattacharjee, Dr. R. R. Deshpande (forM/s. Dr. R.R. Deshpande And Associates), Chirag M. Shroff,FMs. Sanjana Nangia, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil,Geo Joseph, Shibashish Misra, Vikas Mehta, Vikram Mehta, Sanjay Basu,Apoorv Khator, Ms. Mansaa Shukla, Namit Saxena, Gaurav Agrawal,Amir Singh Pasrich, Ms. Meera Mathur, Akash Sinha Shubham Saket,Harpreet Singh Hora, Chirag, G. Priyadharshni (for Rahul ShyamBhandari), Yashodeep Deshmukh, Akshay Kapadia, Priank Adhyaru,GDr. Balram Jain, R.P. Goyal, Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Jamshed Mistry,Ms. Mohini Priya, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Sahil Lal, Abhikalp PratapSingh, Bharat T. Manubarwala, Pranjal Kishore, Sarvagnya TrivediManubarwala, Varun Varma, Ms. Nistha Gupta, Advs. for the appearingparties.H

PRANEETH K. AND ORS. v. UNIVERSITY GRANTSCOMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS.

Petitioner-in-person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This batch of cases consisting of writ petitions (except oneSpecial Leave Petition, i.e., SLP (C) D. No.15056 of 2020) filed underArticle 32 of the Constitution of India can be divided into two broadgroups. First group of writ petitions consists of petitions filed by students,youth organisations and the teachers associations challenging theguidelines issued by University Grants Commission (hereinafter referredto as “UGC”) dated 06.07.2020, O.M. dated 06.07.2020 issued byMinistry of Human Resource Development and letter dated 06.07.2020issued by Ministry of Home Affairs whereby all the Universities andColleges across the country had been directed to conduct terminalsemester/ final year examinations by 30.09.2020. further relief hasbeen sought directing the respondents to declare the results of the studentsof the final year/terminal semester examinations of all universities/institutions of the country on the basis of their past performance/internalassessment and to award marksheets and degrees. The second groupof writ petitions are the writ petitions filed by the students challengingthe decision of the State Disaster Management Authority as well as ofthe States (State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal) for notholding final term examination. Further prayers have been made thatState of Maharashtra as well as State of West Bengal be directed tocomply with the UGC revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 and O.M.dated 06.07.2020 of Ministry of Human Resource Development. Thespecial leave petition has been filed against common order dated14.07.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3199of 2020 and other connected matters by which the High Court noted theschedule of examination in the Open Book Examination (OBE) mode byUniversity of Delhi.

2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020, Praneeth K andOthers Vs. University Grants Commission and Others, commoncounter affidavit, additional affidavit and affidavit in reply to the UGChas been filed. The State of Maharashtra has also filed affidavits in WritPetition (C) No. 724 of 2020. All the parties in Writ Petition (C) No. 724of 2020 are represented. Other writ petitions and special leave petitionare tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020. The decision in Writ

DEF

APetition (C) No. 724 of 2020 shall be sufficient to answer the issuesraised in this batch of cases. The pleadings in Writ Petition (C) No. 724of 2020 need to be noted in some detail with brief reference of prayersin other writ petitions and special leave petition.

Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020 - Praneeth K and Ors.BVs. University Grants Commission and Ors.

3. This writ petition has been filed by 31 students pursuingundergraduate or postgraduate terminal semester/final year courses indifferent Universities located in different States across the country. Thepetitioners are studying in different Universities located in States ofCKerala, Maharashtra, Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand,NCT Delhi, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Haryana, UttarPradesh, Bihar and Meghalaya. Petitioners’ case is that due to pandemicCOVID-19, Government of India announced the nationwide lockdownw.e.f. 24.03.2020 in order to contain the spread of COVID-19. TheMinistry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India issued variousDdirections, guidelines and SOPs. Various educational institutes andUniversities extended their dates of examination for various coursespostponing the same indefinitely.4. UGC constituted an Expert Committee to deliberate and makerecommendations regarding issues of examination and academicEcalendar. The Expert Committee submitted its report on basis of whichUGC issued guidelines on 29.04.2020, in which guidelines it was proposedto take the final year university examination by 31.07.2020. Number ofCOVID cases being still rising, the above Expert Committee wasrequested by UGC to revisit the guidelines. The Expert CommitteeFsubmitted its report, which was approved by UGC on 06.07.2020 andUGC revised the guidelines and issued academic calendar for final yearexaminations. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the revised guidelinesprovided that Universities are required to complete the examinations byend of September, 2020 in offline (pen and paper)/online/blended (offline+ online) following the prescribed protocol/guidelines relating to COVID-G19. On 06.07.2020, the Ministry of Human Resource Developmentformulated SOP for conduct of the examination duly vetted by Ministryof Health and Family Welfare. On 06.07.2020, the Ministry of HomeAffairs by letter permitted the Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment to conduct the examination by Universities and institutions.H

5. The petitioners’ case is that the decision of the UGC, Ministryof Human Resource Development and Ministry of Home Affairs toconduct the final term/final examinations of Universities and institutionsthroughout the country amid COVID-19 pandemic is extremely arbitrary,whimsical and detrimental to the health and safety of the students aswell as violative of fundamental rights of lakhs of students enshrinedunder Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India including those ofthe writ petitioners.

6. In pursuance of the guidelines dated 06.07.2020, variousinstitutions and colleges have issued notifications notifying the final yearexamination. Many universities and educational institutions of India andabroad have issued their admission notification for the year 2020-2021wherein the last date of online registration was 31.07.2020 and unless acandidate possess the degree before that he cannot apply for admission.Representation dated 09.07.2020 has been submitted to the Minister ofHuman Resource Development to find an alternate way to save thecareers of the students. The petitioners have further claimed that variousother examination Boards like CBSE, ICSE, ISC have cancelled theirXth/XIIth Board examination due to COVID-19 pandemic and hasdeclared the result on the basis of past performance/internal assessment.On one hand, the UGC has exempted the students of intermediate years/semester from appearing in the examinations due to COVID-19 outbreakand on the other hand has forced the final year students to appear in theexaminations, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioners inthe writ petition have made following specific prayers:-

a) Issue urgent Writ In the nature of mandamus or any Otherappropriate Writ, Order or Direction to quash and set asidethe Letter bearing D.O. No.F.1-1/2020 (Secy) dated06.07.2020 issued by the Respondent No.1 UGC (AnnexureP-3) AND the Office Memorandum bearing F.No. 16-16/2020-U1A dated 06.07.2020, issued by the respondent No. 3 MHRD(Annexure P-4) AND Notification bearing NW/RK/PK/AD/DD dated 06.07.2020, issued by the Press Information Bureau,Government of India (Annexure P-5) whereby all theUniversities and Colleges across India have been directed toconduct final Term/final year examinations by 30.09.2020; and/or

Ab) Accordingly, issue urgent Writ In the nature of mandamus orany other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to theRespondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to not conduct the final Term/final Year examinations of all Universities/ institutions acrossIndia; and/or

Bc) Issue urgent Writ in the nature of mandamus or any otherappropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to declare results of the Petitioners and other similarlysituated students of the final Term/ final Year examinations ofall Universities/ Institutions across India, on the basis of theirpast performance/ internal assessment and to awardCmarksheets and degrees to all successful students on or before31.07.2020; and/or

d) Issue urgent Writ in the nature of mandamus or any otherappropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to also adopt CBSE mechanism end provideDsubsequently another chance to Improve marks to those willingstudents, who may be unsatisfied with their score based upontheir past performance or Internal assessment; and/or

e) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court maydeem it and proper In the facts and circumstances of the caseEand in the interest of justice.”

7. By our order dated 27.07.2020, we had directed the petitionersto serve copy to learned Solicitor General as well as learned counselfor the UGC. Three days’ time was given to file the counter affidavitand rejoinder was directed to be filed on next date. In pursuance ofForder dated 27.07.2020, common counter affidavit dated 30.07.2020has been filed by UGC. UGC has also filed additional affidavits. Anaffidavit dated 05.08.2020 was also filed by the State of Maharashtra inWrit Petition (C) No. 724 of 2020, reply of which was filed by the UGCvide its affidavit dated 17.08.2020. Pleadings were complete in WritGPetition (C) No. 724 of 2020, consideration of which writ petition shallanswer all issues raised in this batch of cases.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 739 of 2020

Yuva Sena Vs. University Grants Commission and Ors.

8. This writ petition has been filed as public interest litigation bythe petitioner, which is youth wing of Shiv Sena, registered and recognizedpolitical party in India. After issuance of revised guidelines dated06.07.2020 by UGC, the petitioner claims to have addressed letterdated 07.07.2020 to Minister of Human Resource Development prayingto reconsider the decision of compulsorily conducting final yearexaminations. Petitioner’s case is that UGC had issued earlier guidelinesdated 29.04.2020, which were advisory in nature and each Universitywas to chart out its own plan of action taking into consideration theissues pertaining to COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner’s case is that revisedguidelines have been passed in ignorance of rising cases of COVID-19and have crated great fear in the minds of students around the countryespecially in the States of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu andDelhi. The impugned guidelines have not taken into account theconsequent risk of life to which the students writing examinations wouldbe exposed to.9. Petitioner’s case further is that various States are sufferinggravely from pandemic of COVID-19 and respective State Governmentshave imposed/implemented various levels of lockdown under the DisasterManagement Act, 2005. Petitioner pleads that as result of the lockdown,Universities, schools, educational institutions were forced to shut downand to postpone the terminal semester/final year examinations. Petitionerpleaded that pursuant to the UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020, theMinistry of Higher and Technical Education, State of Maharashtra hadset up State level Committee in view of the grave situation of pandemicCOVID-19, which Committee submitted report on 06.05.2020 andrecommended that the final year exams may be conducted between01.07.2020 to 31.07.2020, the said recommendations were objected bypetitioner and representation was made to cancel the examinations.Petitioner also claims to have made representation to the Governmentof Maharashtra requesting for not to hold any examinations. On19.06.2020, the State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolutiondated 19.06.2020 took resolution for cancellation of the terminalsemester/final year examinations considering the safety of health andlife of the students and for the allotment of grades and aggregate marksto students based on their previous semester and internal marks.

10. Petitioner’s case is that cases of COVID-19 are increasingday by day in the State of Maharashtra and many college buildings in the

AState of Maharashtra have been requisitioned by the State Government/ its bodies like Municipal Corporation to be converted into quarantinecentres and for other public purpose in view of present pandemicCOVID-19, hence it is impractical to hold examinations. In the writpetition, petitioner has also given certain details with regard to differentStates pertaining to number of COVID-19 cases like States of TamilBNadu, NCT of Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana,Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and others, the decisions taken by differentStates of not conducting final examinations. Petitioner also referred toand relied on judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 566 of2020 – Amit Bathla & Ors. Vs. Central Board of SecondaryCEducation & Anr, where this Court noticed the notifications issued byCBSE cancelling the examinations for classes Xth/XIIth, which wasscheduled from 01.07.2020 to 15.07.2020. petitioner in the writ petitionhas also prayed for writ of Certiorari setting aside the impugned revisedguidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued by UGC and O.M. dated 06.07.2020issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development. It has also prayedDto clarify and declare that as per UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020,each university may chart out its own plan of action with respect toterminal semester/final year examinations taking into consideration theissues pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 746 of 2020 EYash Dubey and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

11. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner No.1, final yearlaw student and petitioner No.2, an association of lawyers registeredunder Society Registration Act, 1860 namely, Youth Bar Association ofFIndia. The petitioners plead that cause of action for filing of the writpetition has arisen on 06.07.2020 when Ministry of Home Affairs issuednotification dated 06.07.2020 and the UGC issued revised guidelinesdated 06.07.2020. The petitioners’ case is that in view of increasingnumber of COVID-19 cases, many States like Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, Punjab and Maharashtra have announced cancellation ofGexamination of final year students and for promotion of the final yearstudents. The petitioners further pleaded that on 11.07.2020, Tamil NaduGovernment wrote letter to HRD Minister informing that they are notin position to conduct college examinations for the final year students.Another letter dated 11.07.2020 by Punjab Higher Education Ministerwritten to HRD Minister is referred where all decisions dated 06.07.2020Hwas asked to be reviewed, decision of Government of Delhi dated11.07.2020 to cancel all ongoing examination have also been referred to.Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the notification dated 06.07.2020issued by Ministry of Home Affairs and revised UGC guidelines dated06.07.2020. The writ petitioners have also prayed for certain other payersto provide for alternative mode of assessment of the final year studentsin wake of COVID-19 outbreak; to call upon Universities to submit aset of parameters for evaluation of the students on the basis of studentspast performance and accordingly award provisional degrees to thestudents and to promote the students on the basis of the performance inthe previous semesters by taking an aggregate score for all the semesters.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 741 of 2020

West Bengal College and University Professors’Association(WPCUPA) and Anr.Vs. Union of India & Ors.

12. This writ petition has been filed by the West Bengal College& University Professors’ Association (WBCUPA) through its President.The petitioners pleaded that on 27.06.2020 in the State of West Bengal,all Vice Chancellors and Registrars of the Universities held meetingwith the Minister and arrived at consensus for alternate method ofmarking of final semester examination in the State and decided to declarethe result by 31.07.2020. memorandum dated 27.06.2020 was issuedby the Government of West Bengal, Department of Higher Education tothe above effect. Petitioners case is that revised UGC guidelines is inabject contravention of students’ welfare since by the time theseexaminations through special chance will be conducted most of theUniversities have closed their admission application for postgraduatecourses. With the continuous spike in COVID-19 cases in the entirecountry including the State of West Bengal, situation will not at all beconducive to conduct offline examination by 30.09.2020. The petitioneralso refers to letter dated 11.07.2020 written by Chief Minister of WestBengal to Hon’ble Prime Minister requesting to get the matter re-examined and restore the earlier advisory of UGC dated 29.04.2020.Petitioners have also referred to various representations made by variousUniversities from State of West Bengal to UGC to reconsider its decisionto hold examinations. Petitioners in writ petition has prayed for Mandamuscommanding the respondent No.1 to forthwith rescind and/or canceland/or withdraw the letter dated 06.07.2020.

DEFG

938SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AWrit Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2020 –

Krushna Govind Waghmare and Ors. Vs. University GrantCommission and Ors.

13. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners, who arefinal year law students of various educational institutions affiliated toBUniversities of Maharashtra. Petitioners’ case is that UGC before issuingthe revised guidelines have not considered the deadly COVID-19pandemic. Petitioners have also referred to cancellation of Xth and XIIthexaminations by CBSE and ICSE. Petitioners have prayed for quashingthe guidelines dated 06.07.2020 and has further prayed that this CourtCmay be pleased to grant the benefit of decision dated 19.06.2020 (Stateof Maharashtra) to the students of professional courses and necessarydirections to the respondent State may also be issued.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 794 of 2020

Sarthak Mehta and Ors. Vs. University Grants CommissionD(UGC) and Ors.

14. This writ petition has been filed by three petitioners. PetitionerNos. 1 and 2 are advocates and petitioner No. 3 is final year lawstudent studying in Pune. Petitioners’ case is that earlier UGC guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 left the decision to take or not to take the examinationsEof the students with the Universities keeping in view the spread ofCOVID-19 whereas impugned guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have madeit compulsory for the Universities to conduct final year examinations bythe end of September, 2020 irrespective of the spread of COVID-19 indifferent regions/States. Petitioners’ case is that impugned guidelines isultra vires to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioners haveFalso prayed for quashing the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 and for quashingthe O.M. dated 06.07.2020 of Ministry of Human Resource Developmentand letter dated 06.07.2020 and it has been further prayed that result ofstudents be declared on the basis of previous semester/year performance/internal evaluation.G–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 814 of 2020 Ritesh Anil Mahajan and Ors. Vs. The Maharashtra StateDisaster Management Authority and Ors.

15. This petition has been filed by four petitioners out of whichHthree are students and fourth petitioner is member of Senate of University

at Jalgaon elected from the graduate’s constituency. The State DisasterManagement Authority of the State of Maharashtra has been impleadedas respondent No.1, State of Maharashtra as respondent No.2 and UGCas respondent No.3. The petitioners plead that the Ministry of Higherand Technical Education of the State of Maharashtra set up State-level Committee headed by the Vice-Chancellor, Mumbai University inview of grave situation created by COVID-19 pandemic. The Committeesubmitted its report on 06.05.2020 recommending that the final yearexams be conducted between 01.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. The statementof Chief Minister dated 31.05.2020 has been referred to where hedeclared that no examinations will be conducted for final year studentsand all students will be given marks by averaging the marks obtained inthe previous semester examinations. The State Disaster ManagementAuthority in its meeting dated 18.06.2020 took various decisions resolvingthat taking into consideration the state of COVID-19 in the State ofMaharashtra, examination of final year professional courses cannot bearranged. With regard to non-professional courses, decision was alsotaken for declaring their result as per decision taken in the meeting. TheState of Maharashtra issued resolution dated 19.06.2020 regardingnon-professional and professional courses, the methodology for declaringthe result. The petitioners are challenging the decision taken by StateDisaster Management Authority dated 18.06.2020 as well as theresolution of the State of Maharashtra dated 19.06.2020 and have prayedfor setting aside the aforesaid two decisions.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 861 of 2020

Souvik Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal

16. This petition has been filed by final year B.Sc. studentstudying in College of State University of West Bengal. The petitioneris challenging the decision dated 27.06.2020 issued by State Governmentof West Bengal regarding the undergraduate and postgraduateexaminations, 2020. The State of West Bengal vide its decision dated27.06.2020 issued an advisory to the effect that for the evaluation ofstudents in terminal semester /final year of the General Degree coursesat undergraduate/postgraduate level, 80% weightage shall be given tothe best aggregate percentage obtained by the candidate in any of theprevious semesters’/years’ results and 20% to internal assessment duringthe current semester/year as adopted by the university. The petitioner inthe writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.06.2020 and

ABC

Aalso prayed for direction to the State of West Bengal and StateUniversities to comply with the UGC’s revised guidelines dated06.07.2020, O.M. of Ministry of HRD dated 06.07.2020 and UGC’sletter dated 08.07.2020.

–Writ Petition (Civil) No. 862 of 2020

BKalicharam Gajbhiye and Anr. Vs. The Maharashtra StateDisaster Management Authority and Ors.

17. This writ petition has been filed by two students, who arestudying in University in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioners havechallenged the decision dated 18.06.2020 of the Maharashtra StateCDisaster Management Authority as well as the decision of theGovernment of Maharashtra dated 19.06.2020 and subsequent decisiondated 13.07.2020 of the Maharashtra State Disaster ManagementAuthority and further prayer was made that State of Maharashtra andState Universities therein be requested to comply with the UGC’s revisedDguidelines dated 06.07.2020, O.M. of HRD Ministry dated 06.07.2020and UGC’s letter dated 08.07.2020.

–SLP(C)No.10042(Diary No. 15056) of 2020

Kajal Mishra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

18. This special leave petition has been filed by six petitionersEchallenging the judgment and common order dated 14.07.2020 of theDivision Bench of High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3199 of2020 – Prateek Sharma and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. with otherconnected writ petitions. The petitioners were not party in the writ petitionbefore the High Court. The High Court in its order dated 14.07.2020Fnoticed that entire scheme of examination has to be worked out afreshby the Delhi University and dates for conducting examinations of variousundergraduate courses to be finalized. The Delhi High Court directedthe University to issue notification at the earliest placing on the recordthe revised schedule of the examination. The writ petition before theDelhi High Court is still pending and in pursuance of order datedG14.07.2020 the examinations in Open Book Examination (OBE) modehad already commenced. Petitioners’ case is that in batch of writ petitionsfiled in the Delhi High Court, the conduct of examination by online modewas also challenged. The petitioners plead that other Universities areevaluating their final year students through internal assessment and theH

students of Delhi University shall be deprived of the equal opportunity inrespect of admission and post graduate employment opportunities etc.

19. In the writ petitions although no formal notice was issued but,in all writ petitions the respondents have appeared through counsel(exceptW.P.No.739 of 2020). In Writ Petition No.739 of 2020 all the States andUnion Territories were impleaded as respondents in addition to UniversityGrants Commission as respondent No.1, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, respondent No.2, Ministry of Home Affairs, respondentNo.3. The State of Maharashtra and NCT of Delhi appeared throughtheir counsel and filed affidavits. The State of Orissa has also appearedthrough its Advocate General. We have not issued notice to all the Stateswho were impleaded in Writ Petition No.739 of 2020. The State ofMaharashtra, State of West Bengal, NCT of Delhi and State of Orissahave sufficiently presented the stand of the States and Union Territories.The above States/UTs have communicated the Ministry of Home Affairs,Government of India that they are unable to hold the examination due tospread of COVID-19. Before us the cause of States, power of Statesand States’ Disaster Management Authority have been sufficientlyrepresented. We are, thus, of the view that for deciding this batch ofcases it is not necessary to issue notice to all the States and UnionTerritories and the issues raised can be decided after hearing therespondents, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry ofHome Affairs, Government of India, State of Maharashtra, State of WestBengal, NCT of Delhi and State of Orissa. We, thus, proceed to considerthe submissions raised to decide the matter on merits.20. As indicated above in Writ Petition No.724 of 2020 pleadingsare complete and in Writ Petition No.739 of 2020 convenience compilationin two volumes has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.It shall be sufficient to refer the pleadings in Writ Petition No.724 of2020 and convenience compilations for deciding all the issues raisedbefore us.

21. For the writ petitioners, we have heard Dr. Abhishek ManuSinghvi, Senior Advocate, Shri Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, ShriJaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Shri Vinay Navare, Senior Advocate,Shri Kishore Lambat, Shri Alakh Alok Srivastava and other learnedcounsel.

22. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned solicitor Generalfor University Grants Commission. We have heard Shri Arvind Datar,

Alearned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Shri K.V.Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the Government of NCT ofDelhi, Shri Ashok Parija, Advocate-General, for the State of Odisha,Shri Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General for the State of WestBengal. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel has appeared forthe petitioner in SLP(C)Diary No.15056 of 2020.B

23. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the petitioner inWrit Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.746 of 2020 submits that revised UGCGuidelines dated 06.07.2020 are in complete disagreement and havebeen issued in complete disregard with the earlier guidelines dated29.04.2020. The guidelines dated 29.04.2020 were advisory in natureCand provided flexibility to the Universities to implement the guidelines inthe best interest of students. The guidelines provided that in case thepandemic situation does not normalise the grading can be on the basis ofinternal evaluation and past performance of the student. Various StateGovernments including State of Maharashtra, State of West Bengal,DNCT of Delhi and other States have expressed their inability to organisethe examination in the wake of increase in COVID cases in the respectiveStates. The deadline of 30.09.2020 is unrealistic and unattainable. Themost of the Colleges/Universities/ Institutions have been converted intoCOVID Health Care Centres. Therefore, conducting of exams throughoffline mode will entail huge risk of transmission of virus, it will beEabsolutely unjust to neglect the problems of adopting uniform online modeof exams and also the infrastructural disparities. The office memorandumissued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated06.07.2020 is itself flawed and in complete disregard to the Ministry ofHome Affairs guidelines dated 29.07.2020, which provide that in areas

Foutside the Containment Zones, all activities will be permitted, exceptthe Schools, Colleges, Educational and Coaching Institutions will remainclosed till 31.08.2020. Section 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005provides that decisions taken and orders issued thereunder will haveoverriding effect. If decision is taken by the appropriate authority underAct, 2005 regarding non-holding of examination, the same will operateGand hold the field despite the provisions of the UGC Act. Section 12 ofthe UGC Act mandates that guidelines need to be framed in consultationwith the Universities. All Universities were not consulted before issuingthe impugned guidelines.

24. Dr. Singhvi has also referred to and relied on the decisiontaken on 13.07.2020 by the State Disaster Management Authority of theState of Maharashtra where decision was taken not to conduct theexamination in the current circumstances. Dr. Singhvi submits that rightto life and health is the right guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution. Conducting of the examination involves huge amount oftravel, huge use of public transport which are not possible in the presentstate of affairs in the various States including the State of Maharashtra.The present pandemic is special situation which is state neutral. TheUniversity Grants Commission Act and the guidelines framed thereundershall not have overriding effect on the action under the Act, 2005. TheDisaster Management Act being latter and special Act shall operate.He further submits that the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are manifestlyarbitrary and liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

25. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, appearing for thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.739 of 2020 submits that to elevate humanlife, fundamental norms have been engrafted in the regime of DisasterManagement Act. There are decentralized units which may applystructured standard. He submits that students, teachers and theirrespective families are all homogeneous groups, they cannot be treateddifferently for the purpose of conducting final year/terminal semesterexams by the UGC. Shri Divan, learned counsel for the petitionerreferring to the Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 15.04.2020 contendsthat prohibited activities included “all educational, training, coachinginstitutions etc. shall remain closed”. He submits that the said prohibitionis still continued and is operating till 31.08.2020 which does not permitholding of any exam. Referring to the earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020,Shri Divan submits that the guidelines were advisory in nature and therewas flexibility at local level in the guidelines whereas the revised guidelinesdated 06.07.2020 makes it compulsory to complete examination before30.09.2020. Revised guidelines disregard the health factor. There is nostatement in the revised guidelines that COVID-19 situation has improved.

26. Reverting to the Disaster Management Act, Shri Divan submitsthat disaster is still continuing, the State authorities under DisasterManagement Act are equally empowered to take measures. Shri Divanfurther submits that letter issued by Ministry of Home Affairs permittingholding of examination cannot supersede the statutory provisions. Thereare issues of lack of appropriate infrastructure for conducting online

Aexamination, the impugned guidelines violate the right of students andtheir families. The guidelines are impractical and unclear. The orderissued under the Disaster Management Act shall override the revisedguidelines dated 06.07.2020. The revised guidelines are manifestlyarbitrary, inappropriate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India. The writ petitioner is an organisation which worksBtowards the betterment of educational facilities for the students of India.The petitioner has written to Ministry of Human Resource Developmenton 07.07.2020 praying to reconsider the revised guidelines issued by theMinistry.

27. Shri Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for theCState of Maharashtra, submits that UGC has no legislative competencewith regard to conduct of examination. It is submitted that revisedguidelines have been issued under University Grants Commission Act,1956 which is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule ofthe Constitution, which is confined to “co-ordination and determination

Dof standards”. Shri Datar placed reliance on the Constitution Benchjudgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and ResearchCentre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016)7 SCC 353. Shri Datar submits that UGC can lay down only thequalification. Shri Datar submits that not holding final examination and

awarding Degree on the basis of earlier semester’s performance is notEdiluting the standards of education in any manner. The students havecompleted five semesters (in the State of Maharashtra) by March, 2020and for final semester internal assessment is also over, hence, the studentscould have been promoted on the basis of earlier assessments and thereis nothing arbitrary in giving Degree to the students on the basis of earlierFresults. The directions of UGC to hold examination by 30.09.2020 iscompletely beyond the power of UGC. Revised guidelines do not takeinto consideration the different situations of different States. In the Stateof Maharashtra situation is grave in view of phenomenal increase in theCOVID-19 cases. The University Grants Commission cannot fix thedate for holding examination. In the city of Pune itself which is the hubGof the education more than half of the students have left for their homeand hostels have been vacated. There are about 7.35 lacs non-professionaland 2.84 lacs are professional students, public transport being not inoperation it is difficult for the students to reach at the examination centres.Revised guidelines issued by the UGC are violative of Article 14 becausethey apply throughout the India and give one fix date, i.e., 30.09.2020Hirrespective of the conditions prevailing in the State.

28. Shri Datar further submits that guidelines are violative of Section12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Section 12 requiresconsultation with various Universities and other bodies. Other bodiesshall include State Disaster Management Authority. There has been noconsultation as per Section 12. The State of Maharashtra was notconsulted before issuing the revised guidelines, the guidelines are, thus,not in accordance with Section 12. Shri Datar submits that provisions ofDisaster Management Act will have overriding effect. He placed relianceon Section 72 of the Act, 2005. Section 72 shall override not only theprovisions of Maharashtra University Act but also University GrantsCommission Act, 1956 and also the decision taken and orders issuedunder Act, 1956. In the circumstances decision taken by the State DisasterManagement Authority in the State of Maharashtra in not holdingexamination shall operate and hold the field despite the provisions ofUGC Act and the revised guidelines. Shri Datar has also referred toSection 18 and 24 of Act, 2005 and submits that earlier Guidelines dated29.04.2020 were advisery in nature. Shri Datar has also referred toUGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the First Degreethrough Formal Education) Regulations, 2003. The proposal ofMaharashtra Government to grant Degree on the basis of first fivesemesters and internal assessment is in accordance with Regulations,2003. Shri Datar has referred to and relied on the Government Resolutiondated 19.06.2020 as well as the decision dated 18.06.2020 of StateDisaster Management Authority.29. Shri Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General for the State ofOdisha adopts the submission of Shri Arvind Datar. He submits that it isnot possible to hold the final examination by 30.09.2020. Shri Parijasubmits that there are several reasons which make it impossible to takephysical examination in the present scenario. The public transport is notfunctioning, Schools and Colleges are closed from 25.03.2020 andstudents have gone back to their native places. Several Colleges arepresently being used by the District Administrations as QuarantineCentres, COVID Care Home, COVID Care Centre, COVID CareHospital, etc. COVID-19 infection is spreading rapidly in the State ofOdisha. It is not feasible to conduct online examination also since mostof the students belong to the lower and medium income group and do nothave desktop or laptop or decent smart phone at home. The Minister,Ministry of Higher Education, Government of Odisha has issuedinstructions for adopting alternative procedure for undergraduate or post-

ABC

Agraduate final year or final semester students which is in consonancewith UGC guidelines dated 29.04.2020. To await indefinitely forconducting of examination shall delay the academic calendar.

30. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.741 of 2020 submits that on 27.06.2020 anBadvisory was issued by the State of Bengal to the effect that students interminal semester/final year of the General Degree courses at under-Graduate/post-Graduate level, 80% weightage should be considered onthe basis of the best aggregate percentage obtained by the candidates inany of the previous semesters’/years’ results and 20% on internalassessment during the current semester/year. The result of final year/Csemester would be declared by 31.07.2020.

31. Shri Gupta submits that UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 isnot statutory document but it is an executive instruction. He submitsthat it is unreasonable to direct the State to hold the examination by30.09.2020. He submits that in the State of West Bengal most of theDUniversities are not the Campus University but large number of Collegesare affiliated and local trains and metros are not working. Several districtsare also affected by Super Cyclone Amphan. He submitted that nophysical examination is possible in the State of West Bengal. There islack of digital infrastructure. The guidelines are violative of Section 12Eof Act, 1956 since relevant fact is not taken into consideration. Section12 of the UGC Act requires consultation which means effectiveconsultation.

32. Shri Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General, has appearedfor the State of West Bengal. Shri Dutta submits that UGC has notFtaken into consideration the pandemic. He submits that public health hasto be taken into consideration. He has also referred to Article 39(e),41,45, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of India. He submits that every Statehas peculiar problems and UGC could not have taken decision withoutconsulting the States.

G33. Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for NCT ofDelhi submits that on 11.07.2020, Deputy Chief Minister wrote thatbecause of pandemic, examination cannot be held. He submits that onlineinfrastructure was also not sufficient. Shri Vishwanathan submits thatEntry 66 of List I of 7[th] Schedule has no role to play. The students haveno access to the books, online has its own shortcomings. The guidelinesHdated 29.04.2020 were only advisory and now guidelines dated 06.07.2020

have been made compulsory. He submits that guidelines dated 06.07.2020has no statutory force. Shri Vishwanathan submits that there is no rationaldistinction between pre-final or final examination and it is easier to evolvemechanism for final examination. Shri Vishwanathan submits that thisCourt may consider for appointing an independent commission forexploring the solution.

34. Shri Alakh Alok Srivastava, counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have been issued in violation ofSection 12. He submits that words “other bodies” occurring in Section12 means health experts also. He submits that there was no pan-Indiaconsultation before issuing guidelines. He further submits that theguidelines issued under Section 12 are only advisory. Referring to Section14 of UGC Act, he submits that UGC has right only to stop the grant. Hesubmits that Section 22 right of conferring or granting degrees shall beexercised only by University, who is authorised to confer the Degrees.

35. Referring to Regulation 6.3 of Regulation 6 of 2003 Regulations,Shri Srivastava submits that nature of final examination, whether writtenor oral or both, in respect of each course, ought to have been madeknown to the students at the beginning of the academic session. Hesubmits that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. ShriSrivastava has submitted that criteria as suggested by the State of MadhyaPradesh which is at page 463 of the compilation Volume II should beaccepted and necessary direction be issued accordingly.

36. Shri Kishor Lambat, counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.745of 2020 submitted that when not even 50% syllabus is complete how theexamination can be held. The Bar Council of India has resolved topostpone the All India Bar Examination keeping in view the presentpandemic. UGC has not taken opinions and advice of relevant bodies.Online examination is not feasible in the present situation.

37. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing inSLP, filed against the order of the Delhi High Court contends that presentsystem of online examination does not provide level playing field, leftover students will be given chance, it will delay the whole process. Shesubmitted that Delhi High Court in issuing impugned order dated14.07.2020 has not considered the challenges to the online examination.She further does not dispute that in pursuance of the impugned directionof the Delhi High Court online examinations have commenced by theDelhi University.

A38. Shri P.S. Narasimha has appeared for the writ petitioners, thestudents, who prayed for the enforcement of UGC guidelines dated06.07.2020. He submits that majority of students want examination tobe held. He submits that under-Graduate Degree is minimum qualificationfor various employment and the final examination when takes place thenstudents are granted the Degree which is most relevant for grading theBstudents. Final evaluation for the students who want to go abroad isnecessary. The students must have chance to improve in final yearexamination. Shri Narasimha submits that University has time to copewith the health situation. He submits that in the pandemic life has to goon, thus, methods have to be found. The methodology of evaluation is aCpart of standard of education which is in the domain of the UGC. Hesubmits that conduct of final examination is necessary.39. Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel who appears forthe writ petitioners who have challenged the decision of the State DisasterManagement Authority of the State of Maharashtra and have prayedDfor enforcement of the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 submits that holdingof examination is legal, ethical and academic. He submits that thestudents saying for conferring the Degree without holding examinationshould not be heard under Article 32. The State Government cannot saythat examination be not held. He submits that earlier in the State ofMaharashtra Vice Chancellors have taken decision to hold final yearEexamination which was made political issue by Yuva Sena. He submitsthat there is no power in the State in deciding that Degree be givenwithout examination. He submits that the State has no power to issueany direction not to conduct any examination. Shri Navare, however,has fairly submitted that the date 30.09.2020 has to be moderated in theFpeculiar situation of State.

40. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing forUniversity Grants Commission submits that judicial review of theguidelines of the UGC dated 06.07.2020 is permissible only on limitedgrounds. He submits that there are no sufficient grounds to grant judicialGreview to the decision of the UGC. He has referred to UGC guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 and submitted that the schedule of conducting ofexamination was already mentioned in the guidelines. He submitted thatthe State level committee founded by the Minister, Higher TechnicalEducation for Government of Maharashtra has submitted report dated06.05.2020 where it was recommended that final examination be held.HHe submits that the State has also accepted the above recommendations.Referring to 06.07.2020 decision of Ministry of Home Affairs, Shri Mehtasubmits that if authority has power to do something, the form is notmaterial. He submits that under UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 onlyfinal year examinations have to be held which is reasonablerecommendation and there being option of offline, online and hybrid mode,the reasonable flexibility was provided, sufficient time was also given inthe guidelines dated 06.07.2020 for conducting the examination and underthe guidelines an opportunity was given to any student who fails to appear,to sit in special examination even after 30.09.2020 which was reasonableand protected the interest of the students. He submits that the orderdated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development,guidelines for conducting examination were issued after application ofmind and due consideration of ground situation. The standard operatingprocedures for conducting examination were vetted by the Ministry ofFamily Health and Welfare. The date 30.09.2020 was fixed for completionof examination in the larger interest of the students to take care of thefuture prospects of the students. Referring to the order dated 29.07.2020issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and theguidelines providing that any area outside the containment zone, School,Colleges and Coaching Institutions shall remain closed till 31.08.2020,he submit that it could not come in the way of conducting examinationsince the Ministry of Home Affairs have already granted exemption forconducting the examination despite the closure of Schools, Colleges andCoaching Institutions. Shri Mehta submits that there are large numberof Universities in the entire country who have conducted theirexaminations and several Universities are proceeding with the holdingof the examination. It is only the few States who have not conducted theexamination. Shri Mehta submits that University Grants Act is referableto Entry 66 List I of 7[th] Schedule and no contrary decision of the Statecan stand in its way. Referring to Regulations, 2003, Shri Mehta submitsthat as per Regulations which are statutory, the Universities are obligedto adopt the guidelines issued by the UGC. Referring to the decisions ofMinistry of Home Affairs, Shri Mehta submits that in the case of Nationaldisaster, Centre has taken care of and in the given set of facts the Statecan give suggestion to change the schedule i.e. change the deadline tohold the examination i.e. 30.09.2020. He submits that deadline was issuedin the interest of the students.

A41. For the Union of India Shri S.V. Raju, learned AdditionalSolicitor General has appeared. Shri Raju submits that under the guidelinesissued along with the order of the Government of India, Ministry ofHome Affairs which prohibited opening of Schools, Colleges andInstitutions till 31.08.2020, there is no prohibition in any manner in conductBof the examination. He submits that closure of the Schools, Colleges andInstitutions has nothing to do with the conduct of the examinations andnormally final examinations are conducted only after teaching is overi.e. after Colleges are closed. He further submitted that it is not necessarythat the examination must be held where teaching is imparted or where

attendance took place. It can also take place in hall unconnected withCthe Schools, Colleges and Institutions where the teaching was imparted.He submits that the Ministry of Home Affairs has duly examined therequest of Ministry of Human Resource Development and respondenton 06.07.2020, taking into consideration the academic interest of largenumber of students it was decided to permit the conduct of finalDexaminations.

42. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to and relied onseveral judgments of this Court which shall be referred to whileconsidering the submissions of the parties.

43. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselEfor the parties and perused the material on record.44. From the submissions of the parties following issues arise forconsideration:

(1) Whether the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 requiring theFUniversities to complete terminal semester/final year examinationby 30.09.2020 is beyond the domain of the UGC and does notrelate to “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutionof higher education”?

(2) Whether the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued byGthe UGC are non-statutory, advisory only and contrary to earlierguidelines dated 29.04.2020?

(3) Whether the UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

(4) Whether the UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are violativeof Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the guidelines havebeen issued disregarding the pandemic COVID-19?

(5) Whether the guidelines of the UGC dated 06.07.2020 are liableto be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of Section 12 ofUGC Act, 1956?

(6) Whether the State and State’s Disaster Management Authorityin exercise of jurisdiction under Disaster Management Act, 2005can take decision not to hold examination by 30.09.2020disregarding the direction in the UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020?

(7) Whether the State or State Disaster Management Authority,in exercise of jurisdiction under Act, 2005, can take decision toaward degrees to final year/final semester students by promotingthem on the basis of criteria of assessment formulated by theState/Universities on the result of previous semesters/exams andinternal assessment of final year/terminal semester in disregardto the guidelines dated 06.07.2020 which require holding ofexamination of final year/terminal semester by 30.09.2020?

Issue No.1

45. We, in the present batch of cases are concerned withexaminations by the Universities and the degrees to be conferred tograduates and postgraduates. University is an institution of highereducation. Education plays very significant role in development ofpersonality of an individual as well as in the progress and developmentof country. After independence of our country, looking to the pivotalrole of higher education, the Government of India constituted aCommission known as “University Education Commission” with Dr.S. Radhakrishnan as Chairman. The Commission submitted report,which mentioned “Universities as the organs of Civilisation”. The reportemphasised on the need for higher standards in Universities dealing withstandards of teaching and examinations. The Commission recorded itsviews in the following words:-

“The need for High Standards.

Introduction—It is the primary duty of university tomaintain the highest standards of its teaching and examinations.

AA university is place of higher education where the personalityand capacities of the students are developed to the utmost byteachers who should themselves be at work at the frontiers ofknowledge in their respective fields. The success of universityis to be judged as much by the type of graduate it turns out as bythe amount and quality of research contributed by its teachersBand research students. It must be clearly recognized that there isno conflict involved between the twofold function of universityto educate its members and to advance the frontiers of knowledge- the two functions are, in fact, complementary. Unless highstandards of teaching and examinations are maintained, researchCwill suffer, since research can continue uninterruptedly only ifthere is regular supply of graduates well prepared by generaleducation for specialized research work. On the other hand, ifresearch is neglected by teachers, their teaching will lack vitalityand will rapidly become stale. degree must always be what auniversity makes it by the kind of teaching it imparts and the typeDof intellectual and social life it provides for its members. If ouruniversities are to be the makers of future leaders of thought andaction in the country, as they should be, our degrees must connotea high standard of scholarly achievement in our graduates.”

46. The Parliament enacted the University Grants CommissionEAct, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “UGC Act, 1956”) to makeprovision for the coordination and determination of standards inUniversities and for that purpose to establish University GrantsCommission. The UGC Act, 1956 is referable to Entry 66 of List I ofSeventh Schedule of the Constitution which provides as under:-F“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutionsfor higher education or research and scientific and technicalinstitutions.”

47. The education including Universities both in Government ofIndia Act, 1935 and the Constitution of India was State subject. EntryG11 in the State List prior to Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act,1976 provided:-

“………Education including Universities, subject to the provisionsof Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III”.

48. By Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f.03.01.1977, Entry 11 from List II was omitted and was transferred andcombined with subject of Entry 25 of List III. Entry 25 List III as afteramendment by Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 is tothe following effect:-

“25. Education, including technical education, medical educationand universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”

49. Education including university education, thus, is now aconcurrent subject where both State legislature as well as Parliamenthave legislative competence. Entry 11 of List II as existed prior toConstitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 as well as Entry 25of List III is subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of List I, which is theConstitutional Scheme delineated by Seventh Schedule of the Constitutionof India. The inter-play with regard to legislation by State referable toearlier Entry 11 of List II as well as Entry 25 of List III with that ofEntry 66 of List I came for consideration before this Court in severalcases. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Gujarat University andAnr. Vs. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors., AIR 1963SC 703 laid down that although there may be overlapping between aState Legislation referable to Entry 11 of List II and Parliament legislationreferable to Entry 66 List I but to the extent of overlapping the powerconferred by Item 66 of List I must prevail over power of the State. Inparagraph 23 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench Laid down:-“……………………………Use of the expression “subject to”in item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates thatlegislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertakenby the State Legislatures. In Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. Vs.State of Orissa [1961] 2 SCR 537: (AIR 1961 SC 459), this Courtin considering the import of the expression “subject to” used in anentry in List II, in relation to an entry in List I observed that to theextent of the restriction imposed by the use of the expression“subject to” in an entry in List II, the power is taken away fromthe State Legislature. Power of the State to legislate in respectof education including Universities must to the extent to which itis entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power isexercised or not, be deemed to berestricted…………………………”

BCD

A50. Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastavaand Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 120 had occasionto consider the inter-play between Entry 66 of List I and that of Entry 25of List III. The Constitution Bench had occasion to consider aGovernment order dated 11.10.1994 issued by the State of Uttar Pradeshwhere for admission in Post Graduate Medical Entrance ExaminationBpercentage of 45% marks was fixed for the general category candidates,cut-off for reserved category candidates, i.e., Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes etc., was fixed at 35% and thereafter, by another G.O.dated 31.8.1995 the State of Uttar Pradesh completely did away with acut-off percentage of marks in respect of the reserved categoryCcandidates, which was challenged before this Court. This Court heldthat while laying down minimum qualifying marks for admission to thePost Graduate Courses, it was not open to the State Government to saythat there will be no minimum qualifying marks for the reserved categorycandidates in Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,(1997) 3 SCC 90. The State of U.P. issued an ordinance on 15.01.1997Drevising the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved categorycandidates from 35% to 20%, which ordinance was challenged beforethis Court by means of writ petition under Article 32. Similarly, State ofMadhya Pradesh also by Government Order directed the minimumqualifying marks for the reserved category candidates be fixed 20% forEScheduled Casts and 15% for Scheduled Tribes, which was also underchallenge. This court in the above context had occasion to consider theRegulations framed under the Medical Council Act, 1956, Parliamentarylegislation, which Regulation provided standard of qualification foradmission in medical course. There being conflict between the criteriafixed by the State of U.P. and State of M.P. and those fixed by RegulationsFunder Indian Medical Council Act, the controversy was finally determinedby the Constitution Bench, in paragraph 35, following was laid down:-

“35. The legislative competence of the Parliament and thelegislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 isregulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIthGSchedule as originally in force. Entry 11 of List-II gave to theStates an exclusive power to legislate on

“education including universities subject to the provisionsof retries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I and Entry 25 of List-III”.

Entry 11 of List-II was deleted and Entry 25 of List-IIIwas amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as result of theConstitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present Entry 25in the Concurrent List is as follows:

“25. Education, including technical education, medicaleducation and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63,64, 65 and 66 list-I: vocational and technical training of labour.”

Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I. Entry 66 ofList-I is as follows :

“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards ininstitutions for higher education or research and scientific andtechnical institutions.”

Both the Union as well as the States have the power tolegislate on education including medical education, subject, interalia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with laying down standardsin institutions for higher education or research and scientific andtechnical institutions as also co-ordination of such standards. AState has, therefore, the right to control education including medicaleducation so long as the field is not occupied by any UnionLegislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling educationin the State, impinge on standards in intuitions for higher education.Because this is exclusively within the purview of the UnionGovernment. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admissionto the institutions for higher education including higher medicaleducation, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laiddown by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List-I. Secondly,while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary toremember that from 1977 education including, inter alia, medicaland university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that theUnion can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, theState will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided inArticle 254.”

51. Constitution Bench had also occasion to elaborate on differentaspects of “standards of education”. This Court held that the standardsof examination is also one of the relevant factor in standards of education.In paragraph 36, following has been laid down:-

“36. It would not be correct to say that the norms foradmission have no connection with the standard of education, orthat the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List-III. Norms of admission can have direct impact on the standardsof education. Of course, there can be rules for admission whichare consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards ofeducation prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers underEntry 66 of List-I. For example, State may, for admission to thepost-graduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in additionto those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would beconsistent with promoting higher standards for admission to thehigher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laiddown can, and do have an adverse affect on the standards ofeducation in the institutes of higher education. Standards ofeducation in an institution or college depend on various factors.Some of these are :

(1) The calibre of the teaching staff;

(2) proper syllabus designed to achieve high level ofeducation in the given span of time;

(3) The student-teacher ratio;

(4) The ratio between the students and the hospital bedsavailable to each student;

(5) The calibre of the students admitted to the institution;

(6) Equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilitiesfor training in the case of medical colleges;

(7) Adequate accommodation for the college and theattached hospital; and

(8) The standard of examinations held including the mannerin which the papers are set and examined and the clinicalperformance is judged.”

52. Three Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to considerall legislative entries pertaining to education including University educationin ProfessorYashpal and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh andOrs.,(2005) 5 SCC 420. This court laid down following in paragraphs33, 34 and 35:-

“33. The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, isthat in spite of incorporation of Universities as legislative headbeing in the State List, the whole gamut of the University whichwill include teaching, quality of education being imparted,curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and alsoresearch activity being carried on will not come within the purviewof the State legislature on account of specific Entry on co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for highereducation or research and scientific and technical education beingin the Union List for which the Parliament alone is competent. Itis the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that properstandards are maintained in institutions for higher education orresearch throughout the country and also uniformity in standardsis maintained.

34. In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose, the Parliament hasenacted the University Grants Commission Act. First para of theStatement of Objects and Reasons of the University GrantsCommission Act, 1956 (for short “UGC Act”) is illustrative andconsequently it is being reproduced below :

“The Constitution of India vests Parliament withexclusive authority in regard to ‘co-ordination and determinationof standards in institutions for higher education or researchand scientific and technical institutions’. It is obvious that neitherco-ordination nor determination of standards is possible unlessthe Central Government has some voice in the determinationof standards of teaching and examination in Universities, bothold and new. It is also necessary to ensure that the availableresources are utilized to the best possible effect. The problemhas become more acute recently on account of the tendencyto multiply Universities. The need for properly constitutedCommission for determining and allocating to Universities fundsmade available by the Central Government has also becomemore urgent on this account.”

35. In the second para it is said that the Commission will alsohave the power to recommend to any University the measuresnecessary for the reform and improvement of University educationand to advise the University concerned upon the action to be takenfor the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The

Commission will act as an expert body to advise the CentralGovernment on problems connected with the co- ordination offacilities and maintenance of standards in Universities.”

53. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State ofUttar Pradesh and Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 617, this Court had occasionBto consider the provisions of National Council for Teacher EducationAct, 1993 and the role of the State and Universities in the above regard.In paragraph 59, this court held that NCTE is constituted under theCentral Act with the responsibility of maintaining standard of educationhence the State and Universities cannot lay down any guideline or policywhich would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laidCdown by the Central body. In paragraph 59, following has been laiddown:-“59. The above enunciated principles clearly show that theCouncil is the authority constituted under the Central Act with theresponsibility of maintaining education of standards and judgingDupon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting suchprofessional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance andshall take precedence over the views of the State as well as thatof the University. The concerned Department of the State andthe affiliating University have role to play but it is limited in itsEapplication. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy whichwould be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laiddown by the Central body. State can frame its policy for admissionto such professional courses but such policy again has to be inconformity with the directives issued by the Central body. In thepresent cases, there is not much conflict on this issue, but it needsFto be clarified that while the State grants its approval, andUniversity its affiliation, for increased intake of seats orcommencement of new course/college, its directions should notoffend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in theconditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council.GWhat is most important is that all these authorities have to workad idem as they all have common object to achieve i.e. ofimparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance ofproper standards of education, examination and infrastructure forbetterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities workin coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able toHachieve the very object for which all these entities exist.”

54. In another judgment of this Court in University GrantsCommission and Anr. Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10SCC 519, the qualifying criteria fixed by the UGC came forconsideration. Bombay High Court had ruled out that UGC lacked thecompetence to fix the aggregate marks as the final qualifying criteriaafter the candidates obtained the minimum marks prescribed before thedeclaration of result of N.E.T. examination. The judgment of the BombayHigh Court was in appeal before this Court where this Court categoricallylaid down that UGC being an expert body is entrusted with duty to takesuch steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance ofstandards of teaching, examination and research in the University. Inparagraph 22, following was laid down :-

“22. We have elaborately referred to various statutoryprovisions which would clearly indicate that the UGC as an expertbody has been entrusted by UGC Act the general duty to takesuch steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenanceof standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities.

It is also duty bound to perform such functions as may beprescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commissionfor advancing the cause of higher education in India. The UGChas also got the power to define the qualification that shouldordinarily be required for any person to be appointed to the teachingstaff of the University and to regulate the maintenance of standardsand coordination of work and faculties in the Universities.”

55. This Court further held that in academic matters unless thereis clear statutory violation, this Court shall keep their hands off sincethe issues fall within the domain of the experts. In paragraph 31, followingwas laid down:-

“31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unlessthere is clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulationsor the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands offsince those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Courtin University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491,Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 andRajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sitin appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodiesand normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision

Aof academic experts who are more familiar with the problem theyface, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body hasbeen entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit forthe determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,examination and research in the University. For attaining the saidstandards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any “qualifyingBcriteria”, which has rational nexus to the object to be achieved,that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination andresearch. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may beconsidered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universitiesand colleges and the standard of such teaching faculty has aCdirect nexus with the maintenance of standards of education tobe imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGChas only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying downthe qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary,illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitutionof India.”D

56. Now, we come to the Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020,which is under challenge before us. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020were issued in continuation to earlier Guidelines dated 29.04.2020. TheGuidelines dated 06.07.2020 provided that Universities are required tocomplete the examination by the end of September, 2020 in offline (penEand paper)/online / blended (offline and online mode) all terminalsemester/final year examinations 2020. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020intended that it is only after holding of terminal semester/final yearexamination, Universities may proceed to grant degrees. The challengeto Guidelines is on the ground that Guidelines are beyond the domain of

FUGC and does not relate to “co-ordination and determination of standardsin institution of higher education”. Undoubtedly, the UGC Act has beenenacted in reference to Entry 66 List I where the preamble of the Actprovides:-

“An Act to make provision for the co-ordination andGdetermination of standards in Universities and for that purpose, toestablish University Grants Commission.”

57. Section 12 which enumerates the functions of the Commissionprovides that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, inconsultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all suchHsteps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University

education and for the determination and maintenance of standards ofteaching, examination and research in Universities. The use of expression“examination” in Section 12 itself makes it clear that steps taken by theUGC under Section 12 may relate to the “examination as well”. InProfessor Yashpal (supra) in paragraph 32, this Court has held thatthe standards of education in an institution depends on various factors,one of which includes “the standard of examinations held including themanner in which the papers are set and examined”.

58. The sheet anchor of the argument as stressed by Shri ArvindP. Datar is the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in ModernDental College and Research Centre and Ors. Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353. Learned senior counsel hasrelied on observation of this Court in paragraph 101. Relevant observationmade in paragraph 101 is as follows:-

“101. To our mind, Entry 66 in List I is specific Entryhaving very specific and limited scope. It deals with co-ordinationand determination of standards in institution of higher educationor research as well as scientific and technical institutions. Thewords “co-ordination and determination of standards” would meanlaying down the said standards. Thus, when it comes to prescribingthe standards for such institutions of higher learning, exclusivedomain is given to the Union. However, that would not includeconducting of examination, etc. and admission of students to suchinstitutions or prescribing the fee in these institutions of highereducation, etc……..”59. To comprehend the import of the above observation made bythis Court, we need to look into the issue, which has arisen forconsideration in above case. The enactment, which came for considerationbefore this Court in the above case was “Niji Vyavasayik ShikshanSanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam,2007”. The aforesaid Act, 2007 as well as the Madhya Pradesh PrivateMedical and Dental Postgraduate Course Entrance Examination Rules,2009 came to be challenged before the High Court and the High courtupheld the provisions of the Act and Rules, which came to be questionedbefore this Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre(supra). The Constitution Bench itself in paragraph 83 of the judgmenthas noted that the State enactments does not run foul of any of theexisting central law. Paragraph 83 of the judgment needs to be quoted,which is to the following effect:-

A“83. The enactment in question does not run foul of any ofthe existing Central laws. As far as the introduction of CET at anational level is concerned, the same was not enforced during theperiod of operation of the State statute. In any event, there beingno Regulations regarding fixation or determination of fees of theseinstitutions to ensure that the same does not allowBcommercialisation or profiteering, the State Legislature was wellcompetent to enact provisions regarding the same.”

60. The issue, which was raised before the Constitution Benchwas whether the subject matter of admissions was covered exclusivelyby Entry 66 of List I, thereby the States had no legislative competenceCto deal with the subject of admissions or determination of fee to becharged by professional educational institutions. The said issue has beennoticed in paragraph 98 in following words:-

“98. The next issue to be considered is whether the subject-matter of admissions was covered exclusively by List I Entry 66,Dthereby the States having no legislative competence whatsoeverto deal with the subject of admissions or determination of fee tobe charged by professional educational institutions.”

61. In paragraph 101, the Constitution Bench repelled the abovesubmission and in the above context the observations were madeE“however, that would not include conducting of examination, etc. andadmission of students to such institutions or prescribing the fee in theseinstitutions of higher education, etc.”

62. The Constitution Bench in paragraph 101 has used theexpression “not include conducting of examination etc.” In the presentFcase, there is no claim on behalf of the UGC that it is the UGC whichshall conduct the examination of the graduate and postgraduate students.The examinations are to be conducted by the respective Universitiesonly. The above observations made by Constitution Bench in paragraph101 as relied by learned senior counsel for petitioner, cannot be treatedGto be laying down any preposition that University Grants Commissionhas no competence to lay down any standards with regard to examination.We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the Guidelines dated06.07.2020 are not beyond the domain of the UGC and they relate to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of highereducation.H

Issue No.2

63. The issue consists of two parts, i.e., (i) whether the RevisedGuidelines dated 06.07.2020 are non-statutory and advisory only and (ii)the Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are contrary to earlier Guidelines dated29.04.2020. We may take up the second part first. The Guidelines dated29.04.2020 were issued with heading “UGC Guidelines on Examinationsand Academic Calendar in view of COVID-19 pandemic and subsequentlockdown”. With regard to examination of 2019-2020, several Universitieshave conducted examinations full or partial, some of the Universitieswere yet to commence their examination. At the outbreak of pandemicCOVID-19, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issuedvarious orders and had taken measures to prevent its spread across thecountry including lockdown where several activities were prohibited dueto the situation as developed from the last week of March, 2020. Neitherany teaching could be done in the colleges/ Universities nor anyexamination could be held for the months together. Since the examinationscould not be held in the month of March to June, 2020, by which periodusually the examinations of all Universities are completed and resultsare declared, UGC came with Guidelines on Examinations and AcademicCalendar for the Universities. The Guidelines begins with followingintroduction:-

“Introduction

The whole world, including India, is passing throughunprecedented difficult times due to the outbreak of COVID-19pandemic. As all universities and colleges are closed due to nationallockdown, the teaching – learning process and research activitieshave been badly disrupted. The schedule of Terminal Semesterexaminations has also got disturbed. In such scenario, it is jointresponsibility of all the stakeholders to manage multiple key issuesrelating to academic activities in the institutions. While it is crucialto follow measures taken by the Government to contain the spreadof COVID-19, it is also important to continue the educationalprocess making effective use of technology and other availableoptions. Future may have many uncertainties but difficult timesdemand quick appropriate decisions. We must be optimistic thatwe can reinvent work again and engage the students in effectiveand constructive ways. The University Grants Commission (UGC)has been engaged with this issue and contemplating measures to

face the challenge of safeguarding the interests of the academicfraternity in general and students in particular. Confronted withvital issues of examinations and academic calendar, UGCconstituted an Expert Committee to deliberate on these issuesand make recommendations to address them.”

B64. The University Grants Commission has constituted an ExpertCommittee and it was on the basis of report submitted by ExpertCommittee Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 was issued. It is relevant toextract following portion of the guidelines:-

“1. Maintaining the sanctity of academic expectations andintegrity of examination process, the universities may adoptCalternative and simplified modes and methods of examinations tocomplete the process in shorter period of time in compliance withCBCS requirements as prescribed by UGC from time to time.These may include MCQ/ OMR based examinations, Open BookExamination, Open Choices, assignment/ presentation-basedDassessments etc.

2. The universities may adopt efficient and innovative modesof examinations by reducing the time from 3 hours to 2 hoursassigned to each examination, if need arises but withoutcompromising the quality, so that the process may be completedEin multiple shifts and, at the same time, sanctity to evaluate theperformance of student is also maintained.

3. The universities may conduct Terminal / IntermediateSemester / Year examinations in offline / online mode, as per theirOrdinances/ Rules and Regulations, Scheme of Examinations,Fobserving the guidelines of “social distancing” and keeping in viewthe support system available with them and ensuring fair opportunityto all students.

4. Terminal semester / year examinations for PG/ UGcourses/ programmes may be conducted by universities asGsuggested in the academic calendar keeping in mind the protocolsof “social distancing”.

5. For intermediate semester/year students, the universitiesmay conduct examinations, after making comprehensiveassessment of their level of preparedness, residential status ofthe students, status of COVID-19 pandemic spread in differentregion / state and other factors.

In case the situation does not appear to be normal in viewof COVID-19, in order to maintain “social distancing”, safety andhealth of the students, grading of the students could be compositeof 50% marks on the basis of the pattern of internal evaluationadopted by the universities and the remaining 50% marks can beawarded on the basis of performance in previous semester only(if available). The internal evaluation can be continuous evaluation,prelims, mid-semester, internal assignments or whatever name isgiven for student progression.

In the situations where previous semester or previous yearmarks are not available, particularly in the first year of annualpattern of examinations, 100% evaluation may be done on thebasis of internal evaluation.

If the student wishes to improve the grades, he/she mayappear in special exams for such subjects during next semester.

This provision for intermediate semester examinations isonly for the current academic session (2019-20) in view ofCOVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining safety and health of allthe stakeholders and sanctity and quality of examinations.”

65. The Guidelines also contains academic calendar suggestedfor the academic session 2019-2020 and dates for conduct of examinationswere also suggested as 01.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. It is true that Guidelinesmentioned that Guidelines are advisory in nature and each Universitymay chart out its plan of action taking into consideration the issuespertaining to pandemic COVID-19. reading of the Guidelines indicatethat ample latitude was given to the Universities to conduct terminal/intermediate/ semester year examinations in offline and online mode.The Guidelines, however, cannot be read to mean that Guidelines dated29.04.2020 left it to the wisdom of the Universities to either conductterminal semester/final year examinations or not to conduct, which isclear from clauses 4 and 5 under the heading “Examinations”. Clause 4specifically provides that terminal semester /final year examinations forPG/ UG courses/ programmes may be conducted by universities assuggested in the academic calendar keeping in mind the protocols of“social distancing”. The academic calendar, which is part of the Guidelinessuggested the date for start of the examinations as 01.07.2020. Whenwe read clause 5, the difference between clause 4 and 5 is clear. With

Aregard to intermediate semester /year students there is express mentionthat “In case the situation does not appear to be normal in view ofCOVID-19, grading of the students could be composite of 50% markson the basis of the pattern of internal evaluation adopted by the universitiesand the remaining 50% marks can be awarded on the basis ofperformance in previous semester.” But this option is not mentioned inBclause 4 of the Guidelines, which referred to terminal semester/finalyear examinations. The Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 was issued for apurpose and object with latitude to the Universities to chart their ownplan/course but the argument cannot be accepted that Universities werenot to follow the Guidelines on the pretext that it uses the expressionC“advisory”. The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 were issued lookingto the situation that COVID-19 cases are still rising and likely to increasefurther and as per academic calendar in the Guidelines dated 29.04.2020,the examinations were to complete by 31.07.2020. The UGC requestedthe Expert Committee to revisit the Guidelines. The Guidelines dated06.07.2020 in fact grant further time requiring the completion ofDexamination by 30.09.2020. When we look into the substance of theGuidelines dated 29.04.2020 and Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020,it is clear that Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are in continuation to theearlier Guidelines and not contrary to the earlier Guidelines. We have tolook into the substance of the Guidelines and find out the intent andEobject of the Guidelines. The Guidelines were issued with the object thata uniform academic calendar be followed by all the Universities andfinal terminal semester/final year examinations be held. With regard tointermediate semester/year examination, the earlier UGC Guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 have been continued even in the Revised Guidelinesdated 06.07.2020. We, thus, do not accept the submission of petitionersFthat Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are contrary to the earlier Guidelines.

66. Now, coming to the first part of the issue that the Guidelinesare non-statutory and advisory only, it is the case of both the parties thatGuidelines have been issued by the UGC in exercise of power underSection 12. Section 12 of the Act provides that it shall be the generalGduty of the Commission to take all such steps as it may think fit for thepromotion and co-ordination of University education and for thedetermination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examinationand research in Universities. The words “all such steps” are of wideimport. The steps referred to in Section 12 may include issuance ofHguidelines, directions, circulars etc. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has

to be treated to have been issued in exercise of statutory powers vestedin the Commission under Section 12. Guidelines issued in exercise ofstatutory powers, thus, cannot be said to be non-statutory. There is onemore reason to hold the Guidelines have statutory force. The UniversityGrants Commission, in exercise of power under Section 26 sub-section(1) of the Act, 1956 have made the Regulations namely, “theUGC(Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of theMaster’s Degree through Formal Education)Regulations, 2003”,on which both learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learnedcounsel for the UGC have placed reliance. Regulation 6, which dealswith “examination and evaluation” contains following regulation asRegulation 6.1:-

“6.1 The university shall adopt the guidelines issued by theUGC and other statutory bodies concerned from time to time inrespect of conduct of examinations.’’

67. The statutory Regulation, 2003 thus, categorically requiresUniversities to adopt the Guidelines issued by the UGC, hence, it is thestatutory duty of the Universities to adopt the guidelines issued by theUGC. It is the statutory obligation of the Universities to adopt theGuidelines and the Guidelines cannot be ignored by terming it as non-statutory or advisory.

Issue No.3

68. The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have been challengedclaiming that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted thatthe UGC guidelines discriminate between the students of Final year andFirst/Second year. The UGC guidelines have been termed asunreasonable and arbitrary. It is further submitted that impugnedguidelines failed the test of Article 14 because they apply throughoutIndia and one fixed date i.e. 30th September, 2020, irrespective of theconditions prevailing in the States/Universities, issuing one deadline resultsin unequals being treated equally.

69. The submission is that the impugned guidelines discriminatebetween the students of First year and Final year and carves out oneclass of students from homogeneous class; The impugned guidelines arein continuation to earlier guidelines dated 29.04.2020 and the guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 dealt with terminal semester/ final year examination inclause four and for intermediate semester/year students in clause five.

A70. The earlier guidelines provided that the examination may beconducted, however, an option was given with regard to intermediate/year students for their promotion on the basis of internal assessment andperformance in the previous semesters. Holding of examination for theFinal year students was made necessary by the impugned guidelines.The Final year/terminal semesters examinations are important becauseBthe learning process is dynamic interaction where the only way tofigure out what students know is to seek evidence of their knowledgeand to evaluate it. Performance in examination especially Final year/terminal semester examination are reflection of competence of thestudents. Terminal semester/Final year examination also provides anCopportunity to the students to improve upon their overall score/markswhich are very crucial for academic excellence and opportunities ofemployment. Final year/terminal semester examination of under-Graduate or post-Graduate is an opportunity for student to show hisoptimum calibre which pave his future career both in academics andemployment. We do not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness inDthe revised guidelines of University Grants Commission dated 06.07.2020which require all Universities/ Collages to conduct at least the final year/terminal semester examination.

71. The differentiation made by revised guidelines to hold Finalyear/ Terminal semester examination has rational basis and there is anEintelligible differentia between the student of Final year/Terminalsemester and other students. We thus reject the challenge on the groundthat there is any hostile discrimination between the students of Finalyear/Terminal semester and other students.

72. The further submission that the guidelines failed the test ofFArticle 14 because they apply throughout India and being one fixed datei.e. 30.09.2020 irrespective of the conditions prevailing in the individualStates/Universities also cannot be accepted. Even the earlier guidelinesdated 29.04.2020 provided for an academic calendar which mentioned01.07.2020 to 15.07.2020 for conduct of Terminal semester/Final yearGexamination and 16.07.2020 to 31.07.2020 for Intermediate semester/year examination. When the academic calendar is set, fixed dates arealways given for uniformity. The UGC had rightly fixed date forcompletion of the Terminal semester/Final year examination throughoutthe country to maintain uniformity in the academic calendar.

73. The students who look forward for admission in higher classesor take employment require final degree for their career prospect and tomaintain uniformity in dates by which final examinations are over is withthe object of students welfare and for their career and it cannot be saidthat since uniform date has been fixed by which Terminal semester/Final year examination are to be completed, Article 14 has been violated.

74. Both, the earlier guidelines as well as revised guidelines havetaken due notice of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 and it cannot besaid that the expert body is unaware of Pandemic spread throughout theCountry. The criticism of guidelines that they are unreasonable does notinspire any confidence. Following features in the revised guidelines clearlyindicate that expert body took measures in the interest of the studentsand their academic career: -

(i) The academic calendar provided for in the earlier guidelinescontemplated conduct of examination from 01.07.2020 to 31.07.2020.The revised guidelines noticed - “The number of covid cases are stillrising and likely to increase further…”. The revised guidelines has grantedfurther time for completion of examination till end of September, 2020,which was step to facilitate Universities and Colleges to completetheir examination which was reasonable step in wake of the Pandemic.

(ii) The guidelines made the conduct of examination flexible byproviding three modes of examination:

(a) Offline (Pen and Paper)

(b) Online

(c) Blended (Online + Offline)

(iii) The revised guidelines also made provision of examinationthrough special chance in case student of Terminal semester/Finalyear is unable to appear in the examination due to any reason.

75. The provision for giving special chance to appear in examinationis also in the interest of the students to protect those students who due toany reason are unable to appear in the examination. The above measurestaken in the revised guidelines are reasonable and the criticism of theguidelines that they are unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary are withoutany substance. We thus do not find revised guidelines to be violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India.

AISSUE NO.4

76. The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thatcompelling attendance of the students by holding physical examinationin the present situation of the Pandemic is violation of the ‘Right toLife’ under Article 21. It is contended that lakhs of students, teachingBand non-teaching staff will be forced to risk their health and lives of theirfamily members in event they are asked to participate in the Final year/Terminal examination. The revised guidelines have been issued totallydisregarding the graveness of the present Pandemic of which the entirecountry is in its grip.

C77. There can be no doubt that it is the duty of the State to takecare of the health of its citizens. The various measures taken by thespecified authorities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, are onlywith the object to contain the Pandemic and protect the health of citizensof the country. The criticism of the revised guidelines is that it ignoresthe fact that covid cases are still rising in the different part of the countryDand the guidelines had completely disregarded the health of the studentsand expose the students, teachers and non-teaching staff to the risk ofcontacting virus during the course of examination.78. It is relevant to note that the revised guidelines were issuedtaking into consideration the fact that the number of covid cases are stillErising and likely to increase further which fact has been categoricallymentioned in the beginning of the revised guidelines itself. Further, clause6 of the revised guidelines specifically provides that every University/Institution has to ensure that it is prepared in all respect to carry out theacademic activity following necessary protocols, guidelines, directions,Fadvisories issued by the Central/ State Government from time to time inview of Covid-19. Clause 6 of the guidelines is as follows:-

“6. Notwithstanding the above guidelines regarding conductof examination and commencement of next academic session,every university/institution has to ensure that it is prepared in allGrespects to carry out the academic activities following necessaryprotocols/ guidelines/ directions/ advisories issued by the Central/State Governments and MHRD/UGC from time to time, in viewof COVID-19.”

79. The University Grants Commission is conscious of increasingnumber of covid cases throughout the country and as observed above,H

the revised guidelines have extended the period for completion ofexamination from 31.07.2020 to 30.09.2020 which was only due to thereason that due to Pandemic, Universities/ Colleges may not have beenable to hold the examination. Further specific provisions in the guidelinesthat all institutions have to follow necessary protocols, guidelines,directions, advisories issued as measures to contain Covid-19 makes itclear that there is no intent to protect the students, teachers, non-teachingstaff from the deadly virus.

80. It is also relevant to note that after issuance of revised guidelinesdated 06.07.2020 OM dated 06.07.2020, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment (MHRD), has issued detailed guidelines for conduct ofexamination which guidelines were duly vetted by Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare(MoHFW). The guidelines for conduct of examinationwere circulated by University Grants Commission vide its letter dated08.07.2020, “Standard Operating Procedure for conduct of examinationis relevant” which is quoted as below: -

“Standard Operating Procedure for conduct ofExamination

1.The instructions, guidelines and orders issued by the Centraland State Governments concerning the opening ofeducational institutions and safety and health should beabided by the universities and colleges. However, they mayEdevelop more stricter provisions and guidelines, if they findit necessary,

2.In case there is restriction on movements in certain areas,admit/identity cards issued to the students should be treatedas pass for the movement of the students. StateGovernments should issue instructions to all local authoritiesto issue movement passes to invigilators and all personnelengaged in the conduct of examination.

3.Entire examination centre floors and walls, doors, gates,should be sprayed with disinfectant.

4.Fresh mask and gloves to be used by exam functionariesafter staff verification is done.

5.Sanitizer bottles should be arranged at the entry gate,examination rooms, staff/observer room, etc, and shouldbe replenished regularly.

972SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A6.All liquid handwash bottles should be replenished inrestrooms and entry gate whenever required.

7.Candidate Seating Area should be thoroughly sanitised (deskand chair) after every session.

8.All the washrooms should be cleaned and disinfected.

9.All door handles, staircase railing, lift buttons, etc, shouldbe disinfected.

10.Wheelchairs, if present at the examination centres, shouldbe disinfected.

11.All the trash bins should be cleaned.

12.Staff verification and self declaration as suggested belowmust be done as soon as they report at the centre.

a. Exam functionary must submit self declaration abouthealth status.

b. Thermo gun temperature check must be done at staffentrance point.

c. If any Examination functionary fails to meet the self-declaration criteria, or thermo gun check, he/she will beasked to leave the examination centre immediately.

d. Exam functionary needs to wear the mask and glovesat all the time.

13.Cleanliness and hygienic conditions as per safety and healthadvisories of the concerned government departments areFto be maintained at all places.

14.Proper signages, symbols, posters, etc. should be displayedat appropriate place to maintain social distancing.

15.Downloading of ‘Arogya Setu’ App may be advised forevery staff and student of the University and College.

16.Adequate arrangements of thermal scanners, sanitisers,facemasks and hand gloves at all entry and exit pointsincluding the reception area. Wherever possible, studentsshould be given fresh face masks by the invigilators in theexamination room itself.

PRANEETH K. AND ORS. v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS973COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]17.Avoid crowding at entry and exit points.A18.Opening all the gates, of entry and exit, in case HEIs havemore than one gate.19.Senior staff should monitor the entry and exit. There shouldbe proper markings with at least 2 metre distance whereBstudents stand while waiting for opening of the college gate.Exit of students should permitted one by one only.

20.Thermal screening of students, wearing of face mask,sanitizing of hands etc. be ensured.

21.The Invigilators, while on duty, should be continuouslyCwearing mask, and proper hand gloves.

22.The students should be asked to sanitize their hands beforeand after signing the Attendance sheet.

23.Students having symptoms of fever, cough and cold shouldbe either made to sit in separate room or given chanceDto appear on another day.

24.Hand washing stations with facilities of liquid soap shouldbe made available so that every student can wash her/hishand frequently.

25.Keeping in view the physical distancing, institutions shouldhave adequate rooms capacity to meet the proper seatingarrangement for examination. Minimum distance betweentwo students should be 2 metres. Sample seating plan isannexed.

26.Adequate arrangements for safe drinking water be madeon the campus.

27.Adequate supply of water in toilets and for hand washingbe ensured.

28.Dustbins must be cleaned and covered properly.

29.Proper sanitization of buses, other transport and official andvehicles of the institution.

30.At the end of the day-

a. Used gloves and masks should be disposed only in apedal push covered bin at the Examination Centre andoutside the examination room/hall.

b. Safely dispose off all used masks and gloves discardedat the examination centres or outside the examinationcentre in trash bin bags at suitable place and as perstandard guidelines issued by health authority.”

81. The Standard operating procedure for conduct of examinationas extracted above make it abundantly clear that UGC, MHRD, andMinistry of Health and Family Welfare are fully concerned with theChealth of all stakeholders i.e. the students as well as exam functionaries.

82. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept thesubmissions of the petitioner that the revised guidelines are violative ofArticle 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUE NO.5

83. The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 have been challengedon the ground that it has been issued in the breach of Section 12(1) ofthe UGC Act, 1956. The submission is that Section 12(1) mandates thatthe Commission in consultation with the Universities and other bodiesconcerned shall take all such steps as it may think fit. It is submitted thatEbefore issuance of the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020, the UGCwas required to consult all the Universities and other bodies concerned.The submission is that the expression ‘other bodies concerned’ used inSection shall include State Disaster Management Authority which hasbeen constituted in each state and before issuance of guidelines dated06.07.2020, it was obligatory for the UGC to consult the State DisasterFManagement Authority. Further submission is that the expression ‘otherbodies’ may also include health experts and UGC was required to consulthealth experts before issuing the revised guidelines. The UGC havingfailed to consult the Universities or other bodies, the guidelines dated06.07.2020 are in breach of Section 12 and are liable to set aside on thisGground alone.

84. For appreciating the above challenge raised by the petitioner,we need to look into the statutory scheme as delineated by Section 12 ofUGC Act, 1956. Section 12 is part of Chapter III of UGC Act, 1956,which deals with “Powers and functions of the Commission”. Section12 bears the heading “Functions of the Commission”. Section 12 asHrelevant is as follows:-

“POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Functions of the. It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in Commission consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may

(a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities;

(b) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission,grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under aCentral Act for the maintenance and development of suchUniversities or for any other general or specified purpose;

(c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission,such grants to other Universities as it may deem 1 [necessary orappropriate for the development of such Universities or for themaintenance, or development, or both, of any specified activitiesof such Universities] or for any other general or specified purpose:

Provided that in making any grant to any such University, theCommission shall give due consideration to the development ofthe University concerned, its financial needs, the standard attainedby it and the national purposes which it may serve,

[(cc) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Commission,such grants to institution deemed to be universities in pursuanceof declaration made by the Central Government under section3, as it may deem necessary, for one or more of the followingpurposes, namely: -

(i) for maintenance in special cases,

(ii) for development.

(iii) for any other general or specified purpose;]

[(ccc) establish, in accordance with the regulations made underthis Act, institutions for providing common facilities, servicesand programmes for group of universities or for the universitiesin general and maintain such institutions or provide for theirmaintenance by allocating and, disbursing out of the Fund ofthe Commission such grants as the Commission may deemnecessary.]

(d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for theimprovement of University education and advise the Universityupon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing suchrecommendation;

(e) advise the Central Government or any State Government onBthe allocation of any grants to Universities for any general orspecified purpose out of the Consolidated Fund of India or theConsolidated Fund of the State, as the case may be;

(f) advise any authority, if such advice is asked for, on theestablishment of new University or on proposals connected withthe expansion of the activities of any University;C

(g) advise the Central Government or any State Government orUniversity on any question which may be referred to theCommission by the Central Government or the State Governmentor the University, as the case may be;

D(h) collect information on all such matters relating to Universityeducation in India and other countries as it thinks fit and make thesame available to any University;

(i) require University to furnish it with such information as maybe needed relating to the financial position of the University or theEstudies in the various branches of learning undertaken in thatUniversity, together with all the rules and regulations relating tothe standards of teaching and examination in that Universityrespecting each of such branches of learning;

(j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as mayFbe deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the causeof higher education in India or as may be incidental or conduciveto the discharge of the above functions.”

85. Section 12 begins with the words “it shall be the general dutyof the commission to take”,...“in consultation with Universities or otherGbodies concerned.” What is the ambit and scope of expression‘Universities or other bodies concerned’ has fallen for consideration inthe present case. The use of expression ‘Universities or other bodiesconcerned’ is for purpose and object which is clear from subsequentenumerations of functions of the commission in the Section itself. Forexample, we may take functions of the commission as mentioned in sub-H

clause (d) which provides that the Commission may recommend to theuniversities any measures necessary for the improvement of the universityeducation and advise the universities upon the action to be taken for thepurpose of implementation of such recommendation. When we look intothis sub-clause (d), it is clear that the function enumerated in sub-clauseis only with regard to particular university and for discharge of functionby the commission with regard to sub-clause (d), it has to consult onlythe university concerned.86. The use of the word ‘Universities or other bodies concerned’in the opening part of the Section has been with purpose of referringthe universities or other bodies concerned for whom the function has tobe performed by. The enumerations given from clause (a) to (j) indicatethat apart from universities the function also include advice to the CentralGovernment or any State Government on allocation of any grant to theUniversities or advise Central Government or any State Government orany Universities on any question which may be referred to the commissionby the Central Government or the State Government. Thus, the expression‘other bodies’ used in the opening part of the Section is in reference toother bodies apart from universities enumerated in Section 12. Theexpression ‘Universities or other bodies concerned’ used in the openingpart of the Section cannot be stretched to the meaning which is nowsought to be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

87. The submission that ‘other bodies’ as used in Section 12 shouldinclude State Disaster Management Authority or health experts ismisconceived. Section 12 never contemplated any such “bodies”.Furthermore, the State Disaster Management Authority came intoexistence only after enactment of Disaster Management Act, 2005, nosuch concept was there when the UGC Act, 1956 was enacted. Theexpression ‘other bodies’ cannot be expanded as contended by thelearned counsel for the petitioner. The use of the word ‘concerned’ after‘Universities or other bodies’ has specific purpose and meaning. Theconsultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned was inreference to particular function which was enumerated in clause (a)to (j) and it has specific reference and “Universities” or other bodies”were referred to in the above context. Section 12 cannot be interpretedin manner that for taking any measure with regard to coordination ofuniversity education and for determination and maintenance of standardsof teaching examination in the Universities, the UGC should consult each

Aand every University of each and every State and only then, such measurescan be taken. Reading the provision in above manner shall make thefunctioning of UGC unworkable. There are more than nine hundredUniversities in the country and to require UGC to consult more than ninehundred universities for taking any measure will make the functioningimpossible and impractical.B

88. Section 12 cannot be interpreted in manner that for takingany steps by the UGC, there is mandatory requirement of consultationof all the States/Universities failing which no measures can be taken bythe University Grants Commission. Clause (j) of Section 12 is couchedin very vide manner which empower the commission to perform suchCother functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessaryby the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education inIndia or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the abovefunction. Any function which may be deemed necessary by theCommission can be performed. For performance of its function by theDCommission, the Commission of its own is fully competent to takedecisions, issue any directions, guidelines, etc. The Commission mayalso take assistance of any Committee of experts in discharge of itsfunctions for which there is no prohibition in the statutory scheme. In thecommon counter affidavit filed by the UGC with regard to the guidelinesdated 29.04.2020, the Commission has in paragraph 8 of the commonEcounter affidavit has stated that the guidelines which contained policydecision taken by UGC were made following the report by the Committeeunder the Chairmanship of Prof. R.C.Kuhad. Following statements havebeen made in the paragraph 8: -“8.... It is pertinent to note that these Guidelines, which containFpolicy decisions taken by the UGC, were made following reportby committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. R.C.Kuhad, Vice-Chancellor, Central University of Haryana. The said committeeconsisted of various experts in the field that included Vice-Chancellors of various universities, the director of the InterGUniversity Accelerator Centre, New Delhi, and senior officers ofthe UGC. Therefore, the Guidelines were published “in consultationwith the Universities or other bodies concerned”, as mandated bysection 12 of the UGC Act...”

89. The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 was issued after theHreport was received from the Committee headed by Prof. R.C. Kuhad

as has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 of the common counteraffidavit in which following statement has been made:-

“10. That, however, in June 2020, considering the evolving situationof the Covid-19 pandemic, the UGC requested the expertcommittee headed by Prof. R.C. Kuhad to revisit the ‘UGCGuidelines on Examinations and Academic Calendar for theUniversities in View of COVID-19 Pandemic and SubsequentLockdown’. Accordingly, the expert committee (which alsoincluded Vice-Chancellors of technical Universities and arepresentative of industry) did so, and submitted reportrecommending that terminal semester/final year examinationswould be conducted by universities/ institutions by the end ofSeptember, 2020 in offline(Pen & Paper)/ online/ blended (online+ offline) mode. This report of the expert committee wasdeliberated and approved by the UGC in its emergent meetingheld on 06.07.2020...”

90. The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 12 makes itclear that for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act asenumerated in clause (a) to (j), it is not mandatory duty of the Commissionto consult with the Universities or other bodies concerned in all casese.g. while allocating and disbursing out of the fund of the Commission,grants to the Universities as enumerated in sub-clause (b) and (c). It isnot necessary to consult the university to whom the grant is to be allocatedand disbursed. The expression “in consultation with the Universities orother bodies concerned” has to be read to mean where consultationwith Universities or other bodies concerned is necessary without whichthe Commission is unable to perform its functions.

91. We may further elaborate the point by referring to certainother functions as enumerated in Section 12. Section 12 sub-clause (h)provides: -

“(h) collect information on all such matters relating to Universityeducation in India and other countries as it thinks fit and make thesame available to any University;”

92. Whether for collecting information relating to Universityeducation in India, UGC has to consult all 900 or more Universities andwhether without consultation with the Universities, it cannot perform itsfunctions under Section 12(h), the answer would be obviously that it is

Anot necessary for UGC to consult all the universities while collectinginformation relating to University Education in India. The expression“Universities or other bodies concerned” has not be read in rigid mannerrather it is flexible as per requirement of the Commission. The residuaryclause i.e. Section 12(j) cloth the Commission to perform such otherfunctions as may be deemed necessary by the Commission. TheBguidelines dated 29.04.2020 and 06.07.2020 have been issued afterconsultation of an expert Committee headed by Prof. Kuhad. Theguidelines have been issued after report of an expert committeeconsisting of academicians and experts. It cannot be said that theCommission had no jurisdiction to issue guidelines without consulting allCthe Universities in the Country and all the States or Union Territories.93. The UGC is empowered to perform such other functions asmay be deemed necessary by the Commission. If the Commission felt itnecessary to issue guidelines after obtaining report from the expertcommittee, no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by theDCommission. The guidelines dated 29.04.2020 as well as revisedguidelines dated 06.07.2020 are general in nature and not confined toany particular university or any particular state. Hence, it cannot be saidthat UGC is obliged to consult all Universities or States before issuanceof the guidelines.

E94. We thus, are satisfied that guidelines dated 06.07.2020 cannotbe said to be violative of Section 12 of UGC Act, 1956.

Issue No.6

95. The submission which has been pressed before us by thelearned counsel for the petitioners challenging the revised guidelines datedF06.07.2020 is that the said guidelines insofar as it directs for holding ofthe final year/terminal semester examination by 30.09.2020 does notprohibit State or State Disaster Management Authority in takingappropriate decision in exercise of power under Disaster ManagementAct, 2005 not to hold examination looking to the situation in particularGState. In this context, reference has been made to the decision taken bythe State Disaster Management Authority of Maharashtra dated18.06.2020 and the Government Resolution dated 19.06.2020 by the Stateof Maharashtra as well as the proceedings dated 13.07.2020 of the StateDisaster Management Authority of the State of Maharashtra. Thesubmission is that exercise of power under Disaster Management Act,H

2005 shall override the UGC’s guidelines directing holding of theexamination by 30.09.2020 by each University/Colleges. For consideringthe above submission we need to look into the statutory scheme of theDisaster Management Act, 2005 and various orders issued thereunder.The Disaster Management Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide forthe effective management of disasters and for matters connectedtherewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 provides for establishment ofNational Disaster Management Authority with Prime Minister of Indiaas Chairperson. Section 6 provides for powers and functions of NationalAuthority. Section 8 provides for constitution of National ExecutiveCommittee. National Plan is to be drawn as per Section 11. Section 14provides for establishment of State Disaster Management Authority.Section 14 of the Act is as follows:

“Section 14. Establishment of State Disaster ManagementAuthority.—(1) Every State Government shall, as soon as maybe after the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) of section3, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish State DisasterManagement Authority for the State with such name as may bespecified in the notification of the State Government.

(2) State Authority shall consist of the Chairperson andsuch number of other members, not exceeding nine, as may beprescribed by the State Government and, unless the rules otherwiseprovide, the State Authority shall consist of the following members,namely:—

(a) the Chief Minister of the State, who shall be Chairperson, exofficio;

(b) other members, not exceeding eight, to be nominated by theChairperson of the State Authority;

(c) the Chairperson of the State Executive Committee, ex officio.

(3) The Chairperson of the State Authority may designate one ofthe members nominated under clause (b) of sub-section (2) to bethe Vice-Chairperson of the State Authority.

(4) The Chairperson of the State Executive Committee shall bethe Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority, ex officio:

Provided that in the case of Union territory havingLegislative Assembly, except the Union territory of Delhi, the Chief

AMinister shall be the Chairperson of the Authority established underthis section and in case of other Union territories, the LieutenantGovernor or the Administrator shall be the Chairperson of thatAuthority: Provided further that the Lieutenant Governor of theUnion territory of Delhi shall be the Chairperson and the ChiefMinister thereof shall be the Vice-Chairperson of the StateBAuthority.

(5) The term of office and conditions of service of members ofthe State Authority shall be such as may be prescribed.”

96. Section 18 deals with powers and functions of State Authority.CSection 20 provides for constitution of State Executive Committee andSection 22 enumerates functions of the State Executive Committee.Section 38 empowers the State Government to take measures.

97. After notifying COVID-19 as pandemic the National DisasterManagement Authority issued order dated 24.03.2020 directing theDMinistries/Departments of Government of India, State/Union TerritoryGovernments and State/Union Territory Authorities to take effectivemeasures so as to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the country.Guidelines and the measures to be taken by the Ministries, State/UnionTerritory were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. For the purposesof this case we may notice the order dated 30.05.2020 issued by theEGovernment of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of powersconferred under Section 6(2)i) of the Act, 2005. The guidelines for phasedreopening (Unlock I) was issued on 30.05.2020. Paragraphs 1 and 5 ofthe guidelines which are relevant are as follows:

“1. Phased re-opening of areas outside the ContainmentFZones

In areas outside Containment Zones, all activities will bepermitted, except the following which will be allowed, with thestipulation of following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)to be prescribed by the Ministry of Health and Family WelfareG(MoHFW), in phased manner.

Phase I

........

Phase II

Schools, colleges, educational/training/ coaching institutions etc.,will be opened after consultations with States and UTs. StateGovernments/UT administrations may hold consultations at theinstitution level with parents and other stakeholders. Based onthe feedback, decision on the re-opening of these institutionswill be taken in the month of July, 2020.

MoHFW will prepare SOP in this regard, in consultation withthe Central Ministries/ Departments concerned and otherstakeholders, for ensuring social distancing and to contain thespread of COVID-19.

Phase III

........

5. States/Uts, based on their assessment of the situation,may prohibit certain activities outside the Containmentzones, or impose such restrictions as deemed necessary.”

98. The guidelines dated 30.05.2020 were to remain in force till30.06.2020 during which period some of the States have taken decisionnot to hold the examination as directed by the UGC. For the purposes ofthis case it shall be sufficient to notice the decision taken by theGovernment of Maharashtra as well as the State Disaster ManagementAuthority of State of Maharashtra. State Disaster Management Authorityof Maharashtra in its meeting dated 18.06.2020 took decision not toconduct the final year/terminal semester examination. The GovernmentResolution dated 19.06.2020 was issued by the Government ofMaharashtra where the Government decided that taking intoconsideration the situation of COVID-19 in the State of Maharashtrafinal year examination of professional courses cannot be arranged. Withregard to non-professional (traditional) courses Government resolved todeclare result by way of adopting suitable formula after obtaining inwriting from students that they intend to get the Degree without appearingin examination. On 18.06.2020 when the State Disaster Authority tookthe decision and the Government of Maharashtra issued GovernmentResolution the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated30.05.2020 did not expressly permit conduct of examination in Schools/Colleges. In paragraph 5 of the guidelines dated 30.05.2020 issued bythe Ministry of Home Affairs, States/Uts, based on their assessment of

Athe situation, were empowered to prohibit certain activities outside theContainment Zones, or impose such restrictions as deemed necessary.When the State Disaster Management Authority and the StateGovernment (Maharashtra) took decision not to conduct examination,the said decision was well within the guidelines issued by the Ministry ofHome Affairs. Further Disaster Management Authority of the State isBempowered under Section 38 to take measures for the purpose ofprevention of disaster and mitigation. The decision taken by the StateDisaster Management Authority on 18.06.2020 as well as the StateGovernment’s Resolution dated 19.06.2020 insofar they decided not tohold final year/terminal semester examination by 30.09.2020 was wellCwithin the jurisdiction of the said Authority. We have noticed that guidelinesof UGC dated 06.07.2020 directed all Universities/Colleges to completetheir examinations by 30.09.2020. The question is as to whether theState Disaster Management Authority could have taken decisioncontrary to the directive of the University Grants Commission to completethe examination by 30.09.3030. Reliance has been placed on Section 72Dof the Disaster Management Act, 2005 which provision gives overridingeffect to the provisions of Act, 2005. Section 72 of the Act, 2005 isquoted below:

“Section 72. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisionsof this Act, shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistentEtherewith contained in any other law for the time being in force orin any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other thanthis Act.”

99. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers the StateDisaster Management Authority as well as the State Government toFtake decision for prevention and mitigation of disaster and the actiontaken by the authorities under the Disaster Management Act have beengiven overriding effect to achieve the purpose and object of the Act. Incase of disaster the priority of all authorities under the DisasterManagement Act is to immediately combat the disaster and contain it toGsave human life. Saving of life of human being is given paramountimportance and the Act, 2005 gives primacy, priority to the actions andmeasures taken under the Act over inconsistency in any other law forthe time being in force. Section 72 begins with non obstante clause.This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, 2014(9) SCC 772 inparagraph 63 laid down following:H

“63. It is well known that non-obstante clause is alegislative device which is usually employed to give overridingeffect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions thatmay be found either in the same enactment or some otherenactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of allcontrary provisions.”

100. The Kerala High Court had occasion to consider Section 72of the Disaster Management Act in reference to another Central Actthat is Land Acquisition Act. The Division Bench of the Kerala HighCourt (of which one of us Justice Ashok Bhushan was also member)laid down following in paragraph 69:

69. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 is enacted with adefinite object. Various powers have been given to the differentauthorities, including the DDMA to achieve the objects of theAct. Various statutory plans are to be prepared for DisasterManagement. In event it is to be accepted that with regard totaking any action with regard to premises which is in occupation/possession/ownership of private person, the authorities havefirst to draw proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act andthen issue any order under the 2005 Act is to defeat the entirepurpose and object of the 2005 Act. The legislature being wellaware of the legal consequences have already engrafted Section72 of the Act which gives overriding effect to the provisions ofthe 2005 Act, notwithstanding anything consistent therewithcontained in any other law. Section 72 of the Act is as follows:

“72. Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act,shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistenttherewith contained in any other law for the time being in forceor in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law otherthan this Act.””

101. At this juncture, we may also notice the OM dated 06.07.2020issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as well as thedecision dated 06.07.2020 of Ministry of Home Affairs. Learned SolicitorGeneral appearing for the University Grants Commission has submittedthat in case of National Disaster the decision taken by the NationalDisaster Authority as well as the decision of the National ExecutiveCommittee hold the field and no contrary decision can be taken by

AState Disaster Management Authority or State Government. It issubmitted that on 06.07.2020 the Ministry of Home Affairs in letter toUnion Higher Education Secretary, permitted conduct of examinationby Universities and Institutions. The decision of the Ministry of HomeAffairs is placed on record which is to the following effect:

“Press Information Bureau

Government of India

Ministry of Home Affairs permits conduct of examinationsCby Universities and Institutions

New Delhi, July, 6 2020

Ministry of Home Affairs, in letter to Union Higher EducationSecretary, today permitted conduct of examinations by UniversitiesDand Institutions. The final Term Examinations are to becompulsorily conducted as per the UGC Guidelines onExaminations and Academic Calendar for the Universities; andas per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) approved by theUnion Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.

102. The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued anOM dated 06.07.2020 which is to the following effect:

“Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Department of Higher Eduction

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi,

Date the 6[th] July, 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Instructions for conduct of examination regarding.

large number of examinations of the Universities, IIT-JEE(Mains & Advance), NEET etc are scheduled to be held inthe coming months. In order to ensure safety of the examinees,as also their academic interest, the following action may be taken.

1. Final Term Examinations should be compulsorilyconducted asper UGC Guidelines on Examinations and Academic Calendarfor the Universities dated 29.04.2020 which have been againresolved today i.e. 06[th] July, 2020.

2. All examination may be conducted on 30[th] September, 2020.

3. Taking into consideration the academic interest of large numberof students, MHA has agreed to the request of MHRD andgranted exemption for the opening of educational institutions forthe purpose of holding examinations/evaluation work for Final TermExaminations of the Universities/Institutions.

4. MHRD has formulated detailed SOP for conduct ofexaminations with precautions to be taken in view of COVID-19situation. This has been vetted by the Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare. copy of the same is enclosed to ensure safety to all.

5. Previous instructions regarding “Work From Home” sent videletter dated 30.06.2020 will not apply to the officers, faculty andnon-Teaching Staff who are involved in Examination/Evaluation/Admission work.

(Vidya Sagar Rai)G

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.”

103. perusal of the OM dated 06.07.2020 indicates that theMinistry of Home Affairs has agreed to the request of the Ministry ofHuman Resource Development and granted exemption for the opening

Aof educational institutions for the purpose of holding examinations/evaluation work for Final Term Examinations of the Universities/Institutions. The said OM as well as letter of the Ministry of HomeAffairs cannot be read to mean that it fettered the jurisdiction of theState Authority to take decision considering the situation in Statewith regard to conduct of examinations. The cumulative effect of OMBdated 06.07.2020 and letter dated 06.07.2020 shall be that Governmentof India granted exemption for holding the examinations which shall betreated as exception to the guidelines dated 29.06.2020 issued by theMinistry of Home Affairs where Schools, Colleges, educational andcoaching institutions were to remain closed till 31.07.2020. The saidCOM and letter dated 06.07.2020 permitting holding the examinations shallnot fetter the power of the State Disaster Management Authority totake appropriate measures to contain the Disaster in the State. It isrelevant to notice that State Disaster Management Authority of the Stateof Maharashtra held meeting on 13.07.2020 and took the followingdecision:D“.........

After detailed deliberations in the meeting, the following decisionwas taken:-

1. As per the revised guidelines issued by the UniversityEGrants Commission on July 6, 2020, it is not possible to conductexaminations in the State in case of COVID-19. Therefore,the decision taken by the Government on June 19, 2020 regardingthe final session/final year examinations of non-professional(traditional) as well as professional courses was upheld.

F2. The University Grants Commission should be re-requestedas it is not possible to conduct the examination as per theguidelines.”

104. With regard to conduct of examinations, the State authoritiesare competent to assess the situation in particular State regardingGpossibility of holding of examinations. No State shall permit health of itssubject to be compromised that is why overriding power has been givento the State Disaster Management Authority and the State Governmentwith regard to any inconsistency with any other law for the time being inforce. We have noticed above that there are no orders or directions inthe guidelines of the National Disaster Management Authority or NationalH

Executive Committee fettering the powers of the State DisasterManagement Authority and State Government to take decision as towhether examinations by physical mode be permitted in particular Statelooking to the situation in the State. Coming to the guidelines dated06.07.2020 of the UGC insofar as it directs completion of finalexaminations by 30.09.2020 which direction is overridden by the decisionof the State Disaster Management Authority and State Governmentwhere it resolved not to hold the examinations. We, thus, conclude thatdirection of the University Grants Commission in its revised guidelinesdated 06.07.2020 insofar it directs the Universities and colleges tocomplete the final year/terminal examinations by 30.09.2020 shall beoverridden by any contrary decision taken by State DisasterManagement Authority or the State Government exercising power underthe Disaster Management Act, 2005. Learned counsel appearing for theUGC has, in his submission, submitted that UCC shall be ready to considerany request received from any State to allow the Universities to re-schedule the date of final examinations and in the event any request ismade to the UGC the deadline for completion of the examination can beextended by the UGC and the date of final examinations can berescheduled.

Issue No.7

105. As noted above, the State Disaster Management Authority(State of Maharashtra) in its meeting dated 18.06.2020 as well as theState of Maharashtra in its Resolution dated 19.06.2020 have resolvedto promote the students without taking the final examinations. It is usefulto refer to the Government Resolution dated 19.06.2020, which is to thefollowing effect:

“Government Resolution:

1. In all non-agricultural universities, deemed universities, self-financed universities and their affiliated colleges for theacademic year 2019-20 for organising examinations of finalsession/final year of graduation/ post-graduation classes theUniversities are required to take action as per following point(1) and (2) in A:

(A) Non-Professional (Traditional) Courses:

1. If the students of final session/year have gone through in allearlier sessions intend to get degree certificates without

Aappearing their examination, by way of obtaining in writingfrom them by way of adopting suitable formula the Universitiesshould declare result.

2. If the students of final session/year have gone through in allearlier sessions intend to appear the examination, by way ofBobtaining in writing from them opportunity of appearing theexamination is to be given to them. After taking intoconsideration the emergence of Covid-19 epidemic at locallevel and local situation and after discussing with the concernedDistrict Collector & President of Disaster Eradication Authoritythe Universities should take suitable decision and accordinglyCthey may declare the time table.3. In case of the students of final year if there is any backlog, inrespect of examinations of their backlog meeting is to bearranged at Government level with Chancellor and concernedOfficers of the University and after discussing the matter inDthis meeting suitable decision would be taken.

(B) Professional Courses (Engineering, Pharmacy, HotelManagement, Management Science, Architecture,Planning, Computer Science, Law, Physical Education,Teaching Science etc):E

Taking into consideration the situation of Covid-19 in the State theexaminations of final session/final year of Professional Coursescannot be arranged. For those students like non-professionalcourses the decision has been taken in the meeting of State DisasterManagement Authority that action would be taken as per followingFpoint (1), (2) and (3) in above point A. The concerned apexinstitution of concerned professional courses can make requestfor getting approval to the same. In this regard separatecommunication would be done.

2.This Government Resolution is being released as per theGdecision taken in the meeting held on 18[th] June, 2020 of StateDisaster Management Authority formed under DisasterManagement Act 2005.”

106. The guidelines dated 06.07.2020 categorically directed allUniversities/Colleges to hold the examination of terminal semester/finalHyear, option for not holding the examination was given in the revised

guidelines as well as the earlier guidelines only with regard to intermediate/year examination. Before us submissions have been addressed by thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioners contending that studentscan be promoted on the basis of previous year assessment and internalassessment which in no manner shall be lowering down the standard ofeducation and the decision taken by the State Government and the StateDisaster Management Authority to grant such promotion is perfectly inaccordance with law. Referring to Regulations, 2003 it has been submittedthat students can be promoted on the basis of cumulative grade pointaverage. It is submitted that students have completed five semestersand no special importance can be attached to the last semester, hencethe Maharashtra Government’s decision to promote on the basis ofprevious assessment and internal assessment was in accordance withlaw.

107. We have already held, while considering Issue No.1, thatUniversity Grants Commission Act has been enacted in reference toEntry 66 of List I. The States although have legislative competence tolegislate on education including Universities but the State Legislation issubject to Entry 66 List I. The revised guidelines issued by UGC arestatutory and referable to University Grants Commission Act, 1956 andshall have precedence as compared to any inconsistent decision takenby the State. We also need to consider as to whether in exercise ofpower under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the State or StateDisaster Management Authority could have taken any decision withregard to promote the students without undergoing final year/terminalsemester examination. The purpose and object of the DisasterManagement Act, 2005 is management of disasters and for mattersconnected therewith. The Disaster Management is continuous andintegrated process of planning,organising, coordinating and implementingmeasures. The Disaster Management has been defined in Section 2(e)to the following effect:

“Section 2(e)- “disaster management” means continuous andintegrated process of planning, organising, coordinating andimplementing measures which are necessary or expedient for—

(i) prevention of danger or threat of any disaster;

(ii) mitigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its severity orconsequences;

ABC

A(iii) capacity-building;

(iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster;

(v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation ordisaster;

B(vi) assessing the severity or magnitude of effects of any disaster;

(vii) evacuation, rescue and relief;

(viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction;”

108. The word mitigation has also been defined in Section 2(i) asfollows:C

“Section 2(i)- “mitigation” means measures aimed at reducingthe risk, impact or effects of disaster or threatening disastersituation;”

109. The exercise of powers by the State Disaster ManagementDAuthority or by the State Government which shall have overriding effectunder Section 72 are those exercise of jurisdiction which are within thefour corners of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. When the StateDisaster Management Authority and State Government take decisionthat for mitigation or prevention of disaster it is not possible to hold physicalexamination in the State, the said decision was within the four corners ofEDisaster Management Act, 2005. However, the decision of the DisasterManagement Authority or the State Government that students should bepromoted without appearing in the final year/terminal semesterexamination, is not within the domain of the Disaster Management Act,2005. The decision to promote students and grant Degree by State ifFcontrary to any Central enactment or guidelines issued thereunder theCentral enactment and the guidelines thereunder shall have precedenceby virtue of the same being referable to Entry 66 List I. We, thus,conclude that the State Disaster Management Authority and the StateGovernment has no jurisdiction to take decision that the students offinal year/terminal examination should be promoted on the basis of earlierGyears assessment and internal assessment whereas the UGC guidelinesdated 06.07.2020 directed specifically to conduct final year/terminalsemester examination. The UGC guidelines dated 06.07.2020 in the aboverespect shall override the decision of the State Government and theState Disaster Management Authority regarding promoting the students,Hdoes not fall within the jurisdiction of the Disaster Management Act,

2005 and shall have no protection of Section 72 of the DisasterManagement Act, 2005. We, thus, conclude that the State or the StateDisaster Management Authority have no jurisdiction under DisasterManagement Act, 2005 to take decision for promoting the students onthe basis of previous performance or internal assessment which decisionbeing contrary to revised guidelines of the University Grants Commissioncannot be upheld and has to give way to the guidelines of UGC which isthe Authority to issue guidelines for determination and maintenance ofstandards of education and teaching of the Universities.

110. From the aforesaid discussion, we arrive at the followingconclusions:

Conclusions:

(1) The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 issued by the UGCare not beyond the domain of the UGC and they relate tocoordination and determination of standards in institutions of highereducation.

(2) The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are in continuation to theearlier Guidelines dated 29.04.2020 and are not contrary to theearlier Guidelines. We have to look into the substance of theGuidelines to find out the intention and object of the Guidelines.The Guidelines were issued with the object that uniformacademic calendar be followed by all the Universities and final /terminal examinations be held.

(3) The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has to be treated to havebeen issued in exercise of the statutory powers vested in theCommission under Section 12. As per the Statutory Regulations,2003, it is the statutory duty of the Universities to adopt theGuidelines issued by the UGC. The Guidelines dated 06.07.2020cannot be ignored by terming it as non-statutory or advisory.

(4) The differentiation made in the Revised Guidelines to holdfinal or terminal semester examination and to give option for earlieryears/intermediate semester for not holding the examination hasa rational basis. The differentiation has nexus with the object tobe achieved. We, thus, reject the challenge to the revisedGuidelines on the ground that there is any discrimination betweenthe students of final year/terminal semester and those ofintermediate and first year.

(5) The revised Guidelines also cannot be termed to violate Article14 of the Constitution on the ground that one date, i.e., 30.09.2020has been fixed irrespective of the conditions prevailing in individualStates. The date for completion of examination was fixedthroughout the country to maintain uniformity in the academiccalendar.

(6) The Revised Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 as well as StandardOperating Procedures for conduct of examinations circulated videletter dated 08.07.2020 of UGC as well as O.M. dated 06.07.2020issued by MHRD clearly shows deep concern with the health ofall stakeholders, i.e., students as well as the exam functionaries.Challenge to the Guidelines on the ground of it being violative ofArticle 21 is repelled.

(7) The expression “other bodies” used in opening part of theSection 12 of the UGC Act, 1956 is in reference to other bodiesapart from Universities as enumerated under Section 12. Thesubmission that other bodies as occurring in Section 12 shouldinclude State Disaster Management Authority or health experts ismisconceived. Section 12 never contemplated any such expression.The revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020 are not in breach ofSection 12 of 1956 Act.

(8) The Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers the StateDisaster Management Authority as well as the State Governmentto take measures for prevention and mitigation of disaster andthe action taken by the authorities under the Disaster ManagementAct have been given overriding effect to achieve the purpose andobject of the Act, 2005. Saving of human life has been givenparamount importance under the Act, 2005. Primacy have beengiven to the actions and measures taken under the Act, 2005 overanything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force.

(9) The direction of the University Grants Commission in RevisedGuidelines dated 06.07.2020 insofar as it directs the Universitiesand Colleges to complete the final year/terminal year examinationby 30.09.2020 shall be overridden by any contrary decision takenby the State Disaster Management Authority or the StateGovernment exercising power under the Disaster ManagementAct, 2005.

(10) The State Governments or State Disaster ManagementAuthority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act,2005 has no jurisdiction to take decision that the students offinal year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis ofearlier year assessment and internal assessment, which decisionbeing contrary to UGC Guidelines dated 06.07.2020 has to giveway to the UGC Guidelines. The UGC Guidelines dated 06.07.2020specifically directed to conduct the final year/ terminal semesterexamination which shall override such contrary decision of theState Government or SDMA.

111. In view of our foregoing discussion and conclusion, this batchof cases is disposed of in the following manner:

(1) The prayer to quash the revised guidelines dated 06.07.2020issued by the University Grants Commission and OM dated06.07.2020 issued by the Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment and letter dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Ministryof Home Affairs is refused.

(2) The decision taken by the State Disaster ManagementAuthority/State not to hold final year/terminal semesterexamination by 30.09.2020 in exercise of power under DisasterManagement Act, 2005 shall prevail over deadline fixed by theUniversity Grants Commission i.e. 30.09.2020 in respect to theconcerned State.

(3) The decision of the State/State Disaster Management Authorityto promote the students in the final year/terminal semester on thebasis of previous performance and internal assessment beingbeyond the jurisdiction of Disaster Management Act, 2005 has togive way to the guidelines of UGC dated 06.07.2020 directing tohold examination of final year/terminal semester. The State andUniversity cannot promote the students in the final year/terminalsemester without holding final year/terminal examination.

(4) If any State/Union Territory in exercise of jurisdiction underDisaster Management Act, 2005 has taken decision that it is notpossible to conduct the final year/terminal semester examinationby 30.09.2020, we grant liberty to such State/Union Territory tomake an application to the University Grants Commission forextending deadline of 30.09.2020 for that State/Union Territory

996SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Awhich shall be considered by UGC and rescheduled date becommunicated to such State/Union Territory at the earliest.

112. All writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The SpecialLeave Petition No.10042 of 2020 is dismissed.

BKalpana K. Tripathy

Matters disposed of.