IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.51150 OF 2016(EDN-REG-P) BETWEEN THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA ACT, 1986, GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 242 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. B V NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHOWRI H R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT K S ANUSUYADEVI, CGC FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD:12.5.2016 (AT ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS IT STIPULATES FOR A CHANGE IN NOMENCLATURE FROM MBL TO ONE THAT IS ALREADY SPECIFIED BY THE R-1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is a University established under the National Law School of India Act, 1986. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 12.05.2016 issued by respondent No.1 - The University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’).
2. On an application made by the petitioner to the Indira Gandhi National Open University seeking recognition of Distance Education Council (DEC) for offering programmes through distance education mode, an expert committee was constituted comprising of UGC, AICTE and DEC as per provisions of the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC, the committee visited the petitioner Institution and recommended grant of recognition. Having accepted the recommendations of the expert committee, the DEC directed the Indira Gandhi National Open University to accord recognition to a program sought to be offered by the petitioner in what was called ‘Masters of Business Law’ (MBL), for a period of three years starting from 2010-11 to 2012-13.
3. The petitioner University, after getting the approval and recognition from the Indira Gandhi National Open University, continued to offer the MBL degrees. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner University was in fact conducting the program from the year 1994-95.
4. By a communication dated 28/29.5.2014, the Deputy Director of the respondent No.1-UGC communicated to the Vice Chancellor of the petitioner University that the program and degree of MBL would continued to be recognized for the academic year 2014-
15. Thereafter, by communication dated 29.05.2015, a common letter or communication was issued by the UGC to all the Vice Chancellors and Directors of various universities and institutions calling upon them to furnish an affidavit for the recognition granted during 2014-15, a letter of intent and a fresh affidavit in the prescribed format for approval of recognition for the next academic year, 2015-16. Following the said communication, the Vice Chancellor of the petitioner University forwarded the affidavit as required. Thereafter by another communication dated 18.03.2016, all the Registrars and Directors of various universities under the UGC were directed to make a fresh application seeking recognition for the future academic years.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner seems to have forwarded its application seeking recognition. Following the application made by the petitioner University, by communication dated 12.05.2016, the UGC conveyed to the petitioner that since the Distance Education Council stood dissolved and the powers and functions of granting approval was brought under the jurisdiction of Indira Gandhi National Open University, the recognition was continued for the year 2015-16. However, It was made clear that the petitioner University may continue to offer the programmes in open and distance learning mode as per the list of programs approved therein including the MBL. Further, however, at paragraph 2 in the said communication dated 12.05.2016, the petitioner University was put on notice that the nomenclature of the programme “Master of Business Law” did not conform to the nomenclature specified by the UGC vide notification of March, 2014 and therefore petitioner was requested to change the nomenclature wherever required as per the UGC notified specification of degrees and the petitioner was requested to intimate the compliance to UGC. It is this portion of the communication which is under challenge in this writ petition.
6. Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner University draws the attention of this Court to the notification of March, 2014 wherein the UGC has specified the degrees which could be offered and in the said notification, there is no degree which would indeed suit the programme that was offered by the petitioner University. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the degree that is offered by the petitioner University could neither be classified as a pure masters degree in Management or a pure masters degree in Law. It is therefore that the Academic Council of the university and General Council which comprises of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in the Chair had approved the term ‘Masters Business Law’. The said degree that was approved by the then authority i.e., Distance Education Council, wherein UGC also was a part of the expert committee, was continued to be offered by the petitioner University from the 2010-11.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that the respondent-UGC was empowered to make addition and deletion to the list of specific degrees and in that regard the UGC had infact issued subsequent notifications vide notification dated 21.7.2015, wherein some of the degrees specified were amended and new degrees were specified in the list.
8. In order to buttress the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, it was pointed out from the list that a degree of Physical Education and Masters of Physical Education and Maters of Vocation were indeed added by the UGC. By another notification dated 02.05.2016, new degrees in the field of Sports Sciences were specified namely BPES i.e., Bachelor of Physical Education and Sports. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that it is within the powers of the respondent - UGC to notify a new nomenclature if it is found that the existing nomenclature would not suit the programme offered by the petitioner-University.
9. Per contra, Sri Showri.H.R, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-UGC would submit that the petitioner University is bound to chose the nomenclature specified in the notification already issued by the UGC. On the subsequent notification, which was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel for the UGC would submit that the new degrees in the field of Sports Sciences etc., was issued due to emergence to a new filed and therefore it was required to notify the new nomenclature . However, it is submitted that in the case of present programme i.e., offered by the petitioner University, the University could either choose Master Degree of Management or a Masters Degree of Law. It was also submitted that the petitioner was put on notice while granted recognition earlier.
10. During the course of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of the very petitioner in respect of another degree or nomenclature which was known as ‘Masters of Public Policy’. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that in the case of ‘Masters of Public Policy’, the UGC had in fact not granted recognition and when an application was made seeking recognition the same was rejected by UGC. This Court, by order dated 18.08.2016, in W.P.No.42274/2016 had set aside the order of rejection and directed the UGC to afford an opportunity to the petitioner University and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
11. Heard Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner –University, Sri Showri.H.R, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - UGC and Smt.K.S.Anusuya Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Union of India.
12. Having gone through the writ papers, this Court finds that the impugned communication made by the respondent - UGC is primarily a decision taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - University. Nevertheless, the contention of the petitioner-University that the UGC has in fact the power vested in it to either add or remove from the specified list of degrees, is a submission that is required to be considered. It is also noticed that even though, the petitioner - University has been offering the degree right from the year 1994 and in the year 2010 when the competent authority, the then Distance Education Council had approved the degree and UGC also was a part of the Joint Committee which had taken a decision to approve or recognize the degree. This Court does not see any reason as to why UGC should not include a nomenclature if it is not already found in the list of specified degrees. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, if the UGC could add a new degree in the field of Sports Sciences like carving out a special category called as ‘Physical Education and Sports’ and ‘Masters of Vocation’, Bachelor of Physical Education and ‘Masters of Physical Education’ which were earlier part of larger programme, then why not ‘MBL’? It is also seen that the Bachelor of Performing Arts, which again was part of conventional degree of ‘Masters of Fine Arts’ which included a degree in Music and Dance is also offered by UGC. Therefore, the UGC is empowered to look into the matter and since the degree offered by the petitioner University in the instant case neither falls in the realm of ‘administration’ nor in the realm of ‘law’, a new term known as ‘Masters in Business Law’ was well thought of. In fact such a degree would make it clear that person who has obtained the masters degree will not be permitted to practice law since he or she does not have the basic degree of law. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel any person who has basic degree in any subject is permitted to take up this course of MBL. Therefore even a person who does not hold a basic degree of law is able to take up the course and such a person on being successful is given MBL certificate. Such a certificate, unless a person is already a law degree holder, cannot entail a person to claim as a Masters Degree holder in law. Similarly a person who is basically not holding a degree of business administration also will not be able to claim to be holding Masters Degree of Business Administration. It is therefore with the Academic Council of petitioner University coined a new nomenclature as MBL. This addresses the basic need to remove any confusion in the minds of the general public that a person having MBL degree is not equivalent to MBA or LLM.
13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned communication is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
14. For the reasons stated above, The petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 - UGC is directed to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner University and either continue to recognize the degree as was recognized till now or add the new nomenclature and notify the same. The respondent No.1 - UGC is further directed to comply with the directions issued herein as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE