Supreme Court orders nationwide audit of private universities after Amity University harasses student for changing her name
The student claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her over her religion.
Supreme Court. 27.11.2025
Ritwik Choudhury Published on: 26 Nov 2025, 6:14 pm 4 min read Follow Us The Supreme Court recently directed the Union government, all States and Union Territories, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to disclose how private universities across the country were established, regulated and monitored [Ayesha Jain vs. Amity University, Noida & Ors.].
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria said it was necessary, in the larger public interest, to examine how private universities were created, the statutory framework under which they function and the benefits granted to them by governments.
It directed all governments to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the background, legal basis, and financial or administrative benefits extended to private universities, including land allotments and preferential treatment.
The Court also sought information on who actually controls and manages these institutions, and how their governing bodies are constituted.
Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria The Bench was hearing a petition by 23-year-old student, one Ayesha Jain, who approached the Court after Amity University allegedly refused to change her name in its rolls despite her furnishing all legal documents. She claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her for changing her name to a muslim name.
Her petition detailed a series of complaints made to the UGC and the Ministry of Education, alleging that despite their intervention, the university refused to take corrective action.
The petition also accused Amity of misusing its authority and said that she lost a year of studies because of its conduct.
The controversy dates back to 2021, when the petitioner changed her name from Khushi Jain to Ayesha Jain and published it in the Gazette of India. In 2023, she completed a certificate course at Amity Finishing School under her new name and later joined Amity Business School for an MBA (Entrepreneurship) programme in 2024. However, the university allegedly refused to update her records, preventing her from attending classes and sitting for exams.
After multiple unanswered representations and complaints, Jain approached the Supreme Court in mid-2025, accusing the university of arbitrariness and discrimination.
During earlier hearings, the Court had expressed strong disapproval of the university’s conduct. On October 9, it directed Amity’s chairman and vice-chancellor to personally explain their position.
When the matter was next heard on October 14, the Court remarked that the university had made a “mockery” of its orders after it attempted to tender ₹1 lakh as compensation. It then directed the presence of Dr. Atul Chauhan, President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (which runs Amity Universities), and the Vice-Chancellor at the next hearing.
When the matter came up again on November 20, both officials were present before the Court and submitted their affidavits. However, instead of concluding the matter, the Bench expanded its scope significantly, observing that the issues involved in the case carried wider implications for governance and regulation of private higher education in India.
It emphasised that it wished to examine how private universities came into existence, what statutory provisions or notifications enabled their creation, and what benefits they receive from governments.
“The issues have now come before this Court, which the present coram has also deliberated in detail, in the larger public interest, it is deemed appropriate to examine the aspects relating to the creation/establishment/setting-up of all private Universities, either under the State Governments/Union Territories or the Central Government, and connected concerns,” it noted.
The Court then directed the Centre and all State and Union Territory administrations to disclose the legal basis under which each private, non-government or deemed university was established. The Court also sought complete information on the benefits granted to these institutions, including land allotments, statutory relaxations, preferential treatment and any financial or administrative concessions.
It further sought full details of the organisations and individuals who run such institutions, including the composition and selection process of their governing bodies.
“Full details of the concerned personnel connected with the establishment/management of such Universities shall be placed on record,” it said.
The UGC was also asked to explain its regulatory authority over private universities and the actual mechanism it follows to ensure compliance with statutory and policy requirements.
“The affidavit by the UGC shall cover what the statute/policy mandates as also the actual mechanism to monitor/oversee compliance by the institutions,” the Court said.
The order also called for disclosures on admissions policies, recruitment of faculty, checks on compliance with legal obligations, whether institutions claiming to operate on a “no profit, no loss” basis are doing so in reality, grievance redressal systems for students and faculty, and whether minimum statutory salaries are being paid.
The Court made the responsibility for these disclosures explicit.
“Responsibility for every disclosure and its correctness shall rest with the deponent concerned,” the Court said.
It underscored that any attempt to suppress or misrepresent facts would be viewed sternly.
“If there is any attempt to withhold, suppress, misrepresent or mis-state facts in the affidavits called for, this Court will be compelled to adopt a strict view,” the Bench said.
To ensure accountability at the highest level, the Court directed that the affidavits must be personally affirmed by the Cabinet Secretary of India, Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, and the Chairman of the UGC, without any delegation.
The matter is slated for further hearing on January 8, 2026 when the Court is likely to examine the disclosures in detail.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Mohd Fuzail Khan and Shisba Chawla.
The respondents were represented by advocates Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Pankaj Kumar Ray, Abhinav Singh, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Parmanand Gaur, Vibhav Mishra and Megha Gaur.
.jpg)
.jpg)
