BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 24-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY AND ANR. 
A 
""' 
v. 
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS. 
-
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987: 
Sec.2(i), 2(h), 10(1 )(k)-Technical Institutions-Meaning of-No ap-
proval by All India Council for the Technical Education before commencing a c 
course or programme in Technical Education or New Department-AICTE 
.filed writ petition to forebear the appellant University from running any new 
course in Technology-Single Judge of High Court allowing the writ petition-
orders for cancellation of admission-Division Bench affirmed it-On, appeal 
held, when legislative intent found spec(fic mention and expression in the 
'4---,,. 
proviso of the Act, the same cannot be rendered nugatory in view of object 
underlying the Act-Approval under section JO(k) for starting a new technical 
Dj 
institution/New Course does not cover University. 
All India Council.for Technical Education (Grant of approval.for Strarting 
new Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses ·or Programmes and 
approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or Programmes) Regulations, 
E 
1954; Regulatior 4 and 12-Scope of-Held, Regulation which compels 
University to seek approval before starting a course/New Deptt. directly opposed 
to and inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. JO(i)(k)-Hence void and 
unenforceable. 
The appellant University, a fulfledged University recognised by the 
F 
University Grants Commission commenced courses in technology without 
seeking approval of All India Council For Technical Education. AICTE 
filed a writ petition to forebear the University authoritil~s from running/ 
conducting the courses as prior approval before commencing of the courses 
was not sought for by the University as. envisaged under AICTE Act and 
statutory regulations made thereunder, particularly Regulation 4. 
G 
The stand of appellant University was that it was not a technical 
institution as per section 2(h) of the Act and consequently Regulations 
made for seeking approval of the AICTE before commencing a course of 
technical ed~cation was in excess of regulation making power of the AICTE 
and consequently null and void. 
H.; 
253 
::::<; 
A 
B. 
c 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
Single Judge of the High Court cancelled the admissions made by the 
, 
I 
University. On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed it. 
Hence the appeal before this Court. 
It was contended on behalf of the. appellant-University that it does 
not fall within the de~nition of technical institution under S.24 of the Act; 
it stood outside the purview of Sec. lO(l)(k) and consequently not obliged 
to seek prior approval of the AICTE for starting a department/new courses, 
· the regulations so framed,. cannot be held binding or enforceable against it 
as no rules or regulations inconsistent with the provision of the Act could 
have been made or sought to be enforced legitimately. 
It was contended on behalf of _the respondent that AICTE have 
pervasive control over the Universities also and therefore prior approval 
of _!\ICTE has tO be obtained even by the appellant-University. 
Allowing th~ appeal, the Court 
.· 
' . 
D· 
HELDr: 1.i. When the legislative intent found specific mention and 
expression in the provisions of the All India Council for Techriical Educa-
tion Act itself, it cann~t be whittled down or curtailed and rendered 
nugatory by giving undue importance to the so called object underlying 
, . . ..... ~, 
. 
' 
the Act. In the instant .case, AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an 
E 
intention to belittle and destroy the.authority or autonomy of other statu- , 
tory. bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated 
by some assumed objects or desirabilities, Courts cannot adorn the mantle 
of legislature. It is hard to ignore the legislative intent to give definite 
meaning tb the wo1·ds in the Act a~1d adopt an interpretation which would ' 
F . tend to do violence to the express language as well as the plain meaning 
and patent ail~ and object underlying the Act. [260-A-B-C] 
G 
1.2. In the statement' of object and reasons for the AICTE Act, it is· 
specifically stated that AICTE was set up by a Government resolution as 
national expert body to advise the Central and State Governments for 
en.SUring the coordinated development of technical education in accord-
ance with app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.