अमनुल्लाह के हस्तक्षेप से निजी विश्वविद्यालयों पर नए नियम

New Delhi: From unauthorised buildings in Delhi, neglected heritage monuments to flailing private universities and ICU standards, nothing has escaped the discerning eye of the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

A solitary case from Tamil Nadu or Noida turning into a pan-India stricture and guideline with the Supreme Court overseeing its compliance and even calling for “personal accountability” of the officers involved, in case of any laxity. These have been the recent interventions of Justice Amanullah.

Elevated to the top court in February 2023, Justice Amanullah has served as a judge at the Patna High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Last week, his bench dealt with a major issue involving public universities—turning a student’s plea into a larger debate and a nationwide mandate—ruling that they cannot operate as profit-making commercial ventures.

The case started with the student, Ayesha Jain of Noida’s Amity University, alleging harassment for seeking a name change in college records and the alleged consequences thereafter.

Expanding its scope, the court started examining issues concerning the regulation, functioning and even the establishment of private universities across India.

In a March order, the bench noted that from the facts emerging in the present proceedings, and from similar matters, “it is evident that there are apparent widespread and blatant violations of building bye-laws and land-use regulations”.

“Constructions are frequently undertaken in blatant violation of the applicable norms and regulations, including in the prohibited areas. More importantly, upon completion, such lands and buildings are often put to uses other than those for which sanction was originally granted by the competent authority.”

No private university, said a bench of Justices Amannullah and N.V. Anjaria In their order on 17 September, shall be allowed to be run as a profit-making institution.

“It has to serve a purpose with some sort of a cushion so that its finances/resources are responsibly managed to ensure smooth functioning of the institution and that the teaching and non-teaching employees are compensated suitably…..it is for the public at large that the system operates, especially in matters concerning education. We make it clear that no private university shall be run as a profit-making institution. It must serve the larger public purpose of education.”

The matter is now listed for 19 November. The Centre, States and Union Territories have to submit more information from the private universities via affidavits personally signed by chief secretaries. The regulatory bodies were also directed to file separate affidavits.

The exhaustive details sought include names of those responsible for admitting students, setting question papers, conducting exams, evaluating answer sheets and handling funds, along with details of the management’s role in these processes; any benefits received from the Central or State governments; the admission procedure followed for each course; and fees collected during admission and throughout the course.

The details of how teaching and non-teaching employees were recruited and paid and whether their service conditions had been formally notified are also sought. The number of classes allotted to each teacher since January 2025, the classes actually conducted and the alternative arrangements made when a teacher was unavailable has to be submitted to the court.

The nature and number of complaints received during the past three years, how they were decided and the time taken to resolve them are sought and colleges attached to hospitals to disclose the nature of their relationship with those hospitals are to be given.

Hospitals & ICUs

This week, the bench of Justices Amanullah and R. Mahadevan issued its final implementation decree in a long-running case of monitoring the critical-care infrastructure, especially ICUs.

It directed the Centre, states and UTs, and hospitals to comply with the ‘Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services’ within a prescribed time frame, cautioning that any “laxity” or disobedience would invite a strict view.

The guidelines prescribe a minimum timeline of 3 months for providing emergency equipment (ventilators, defibrillators, ECG machines), bedside utilities (monitors, oxygen supply, electrical outlets, IV pumps, etc), besides lab services and imaging facilities (X-ray, ultrasound) in proximity to the ICU.

The compliance reports are to be filed within 9 months, instead of 12 months.

This case started with a plea arising from the SC’s July 2024 judgement relating to a medical negligence dispute relating to the absence of uniform nationwide safety norms, admission criteria, and standard guidelines for ICUs and critical-care services.

The apex court is now constantly overseeing framing and implementing uniform minimum standards for ICUs across India.

In April, a SC bench comprising the same judges directed all states and UTs to make a time-bound action plan for implementation of minimum standards for the ICUs in hospitals.

“As an immediate measure, let all the Additional Chief Secretaries/Secretaries, as the case may be, heading the Department of Health and Medical Education in the States and the UTs, convene a meeting of all experts involved in this exercise for the purpose of preparing an action plan for implementation of the guidelines. Such a plan shall be realistic and practical,” the Court said.

The bench laid out a process where state-level reports were to be submitted to the central health ministry, which would be then followed by a national-level meeting to prepare a common framework and guidelines. The team constituted by the court shall prepare and circulate to all the states a final common agreed draft by the health secretary, and a final report/recommendation shall be placed before the court.

A document titled ‘Guidelines for Organization and Delivery of Intensive Care Services’ had already been placed on record.

During the hearings, the Indian Nursing Council and the Para Medical Council of India have been made a party to this case and have been asked to propose measures for enhancing curriculum and training to meet ICU requirements. This was after the court was told about the importance and role of skilled personnel assisting during critical care.

In May, the court approved a “three-tier ICU model” evolved through consensus between States and the court-constituted Committee.

Emphasising on the State’s obligation to ensure adequate and accessible critical care facilities and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench gave some directives.

All the states were directed to complete a gap assessment exercise within 2 months and devise a framework for implementing minimum ICU standards starting from Level 1 ICUs. They were asked to propose measures to ensure minimum Level 1 ICU availability for local populations, especially during emergencies.

The central government was told to develop a nationwide GPS-based tracking system of healthcare institutions and ICU facilities and even create a network linking hospitals for smoother patient transfer communication and coordination.

Unauthorised construction

In July, the same bench ordered an audit of the illegal buildings in Delhi-NCR while heavily criticising officials for rampant unauthorised constructions.

The bench, in August, ordered an independent audit, cautioning that “personal responsibility” would be attached if any of the officials failed to do their duty in spite of judicial orders.

The nationwide monitoring case started with a Tamil Nadu dispute involving a building constructed in blatant violation of local building laws. Noting that the problem was not about one property only, the SC bench made this a pan-India case.

This came almost a month after the fire at Delhi’s Malviya Nagar which killed 21-23 people. A newspaper report, which detailed how ‘93% of establishments are failing fire safety measures in Gurugram’, was taken cognizance of.

“We are indicating that if there is any attempt by any authority or government to interfere with any order of this court, the court may not show such restraint in issuing notice of contempt against the concerned authority, government or individual,” the court said in a 5th August order.

Subsequently, an expert-inspection team carried out ground-level inspection of Lajpat Nagar, Saket and Malviya Nagar in Delhi along with Aliganj in Lucknow.

After the collapse of a paying guest building in South Delhi, the bench on 10 September took note of the pending PIL and monitoring being done by the Delhi High Court. It directed the High Court to take up the case at regular intervals.

ASI-protected monuments

A solitary case was filed by Delhi-resident Rajeev Suri against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) seeking protection of the 15th-century tomb, Gumti of Shaik Ali, in Defence Colony.

On Suri’s plea, the tomb was declared a protected monument on an order passed by Justice Amanullah’s bench, which also ordered the Defence Colony Resident Welfare Association to immediately vacate the illegal possession of the tomb.

After addressing this encroachment, a bench of Justices Amanullah and N. Kotiswar Singh went on to highlight the neglect of ancient monuments across Delhi. In the process, it followed with a Delhi-wide management and crackdown on encroachment, neglect and even took strict action against the mismanagement in heritage sites.

In February, monitoring the heritage buildings in Delhi closely, the court ordered the ASI to submit a comprehensive, mandatory affidavit detailed with photos mapping the conservation status of 173 specific protected monuments

When the ASI failed to file the affidavit, the court issued a formal contempt notice the next month to the ASI director General for “deliberate violation” of judicial orders and summoned him to appear personally.

In May, Justice Amanullah directed the Delhi Police chief to pass a strict order, ruling that even Station House Officers (SHOs) will face immediate suspension if any vandalism, theft, or fresh encroachment happens to heritage structures within their police jurisdiction.

That same month, the Supreme Court ordered an immediate 100-metre prohibition zone around ASI-protected monuments within the Delhi Golf Club entrance, but kept its own order in abeyance until the next hearing in late July.

In August then, after the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and ASI filed compliance affidavits asserting that South Delhi heritage sites were clear and well-preserved, the petitioner published photo evidence showing heavy encroachment at Lodhi-era tombs in the Zamrudpur area.

The court then condemned the authorities for “total callousness” and even “suppression of facts”. The MCD and ASI officers are to present themselves physically at the next hearing in October.

For advocate Urja Pandey, at first glance, these are entirely different disputes. Yet they point to the same institutional problem: authorities legally required to regulate, inspect and act often fail to do so.

Pandey notes that when regulators remain “passive”, inspections do not translate into action, and repeated assurances produce little change on the ground, the Supreme Court is increasingly called upon to step in.

In these cases, she says, the Court’s interventions are less about taking over administration and more about asking a basic constitutional question.

“If the law imposes a duty on an authority, who ensures that the duty is actually performed? Directions for compliance, disclosure, inspections and fixing responsibility on erring officials are, in that sense, aimed at making the existing system work rather than creating a new one.”

However, she believes there is an equally important limit to this exercise.

“A constitutional court can require an authority to discharge its statutory obligations; it cannot become the authority itself. This distinction becomes particularly important when judicial proceedings continue for years through repeated reports, affidavits and compliance hearings,” Pandey, a central government counsel at the Supreme Court, tells ThePrint.

“Continuing mandamus can be necessary where a simple order is unlikely to bring about compliance, especially when administrative inaction has become persistent. Yet, judicial supervision must ultimately remain supervision.”

The real issue, she asserts, is not whether the Court should intervene, but when that intervention should end.

“Where public health, safety, education, the environment or protected public property is involved, judicial oversight may be justified when the ordinary machinery has repeatedly failed. But the purpose of such intervention should be to restore that machinery, not to replace it indefinitely,” Pandey says.

“A court should be able to say to an authority: ‘perform the duty the law has entrusted to you, explain why you have failed, and put the necessary safeguards in place’. Once the institution begins functioning as it should, the Court should be able to step back. The success of judicial intervention is ultimately not measured by how long the Court continues to monitor a problem, but by whether the administration eventually becomes capable of dealing with it without the Court standing over its shoulder.”

(Edited by Tony Rai)

Powered by Nyaya 247 News