Supreme Court closes deemed university case, HRD seeks legal opinion 

Supreme Court closes deemed university case, HRD seeks legal opinion NEW DELHI: In a move that could once again stir the debate around deemed universities, the Human Resource Development (HRD) ministry has sought legal opinion on a recent Supreme court ruling and whether or not it should act on the controversial Tandon committee report that had recommended shutdown of 44 poor quality deemed to be universities in the UPA era.

  The move comes a month after the SC ‘closed’ the 2006 PIL filed by lawyer Viplav Sharma alleging several flaws in the grant of the deemed university status. With the apex court now having closed the PIL, the HRD ministry and UGC have to decide on the next course of action vis a vis the universities which were found deficient by the Tandon committee. 

 ET has learnt that the HRD ministry, treading cautiously, has now sought clarity from the Law ministry on what are the implications of the court ruling and whether it requires them to take action on the basis of the Tandon committee report or not.  The quality of deemed varsities has been questioned repeatedly. During the second stint of the Congress­led UPA government, then HRD minister Kapil Sibal ordered a review through the Tandon committee, which found 44 of the 126 deemed universities to be seriously deficient. 

 The Tandon committee had found only 38 of the deemed universities worthy of the tag that allows them to confer degrees. It had recommended closure of 44 deemed universities and found the remaining deficient on some counts but could be improved upon in three years. 

 These institutions challenged the Tandon committee report in court, while some of them opted out of the deemed varsity system and applied for Institute of National Importance status, after which 38 of the 44 varsities have been under the scanner. 

 A UGC panel set up in 2014 to examine afresh the 44 blacklisted varsities effected a surprising U­turn, saying that no more than seven of them were found to be inadequate on specified standards and should face action.