 Deemed University covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Supreme

Court

In a recent judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat v. Mansukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah, a three- judge bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Ajay
Rastogi, negated the judgement given by the High Court of Gujrat, which discharged the trustees of a Deemed
University of all the charges in the prosecution of a corruption case.

In the year 2017, a charge sheet was file against the trustees of Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, a deemed university for
demanding a sum of Rs 25 Lakhs as bribe for letting an MBBS student appear for her examination. The charges
were framed, against the trustees, under Section 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 read along with Section 109 of the India Penal Code, 1860. A discharge petition was moved under
Section 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the dismissal of which led to the challenging of the said charge
sheet in a criminal revision petition that was filed in the High Court of Gujrat. This petition was allowed by the
High Court on the basis of the fact that trustees of a deemed university are not covered under the term ‘public
servants’ under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this discharging the trustees of the
Deemed University of all the liabilities.

There was further an appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Gujrat in the Supreme Court. The
questions that were to be addressed in front of the Supreme Court were:

i. Whether the trustee of the deemed university (respondent) is a “public servant” as defined under
Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
ii. Whether the respondent can be discharged under Section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

Section 2(c)(xi) defines “public servants” as “any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any
governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called,
of any university and any person whose services have been availed by a University or any other public
authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations”.

Through this, it was clear that the trustees would come under the purview of “public servants”. The issue then
remained whether a “deemed university” comes under the ambit of the term “any university”, as mentioned
under Section 2(c)(xi).

It was further held by the Supreme Court that an independent meaning of the term “university” needs to be
understood in order to pertain whether deemed university is to be considered under the sphere of the said term
in the aforementioned Act or not.

The main objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was to remove corruption and social evil of
bribery from the system and to make the same applicable to the people who might be involved in public duty.

It was held by the Supreme Court that “it cannot be stated that a "Deemed University" and the officials therein,
perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the
officials therein.” It was also said in the judgment that corruption is pervasive in India and there is no way that
the education sector, being a very important sector, remains untouched of such scandals.

 Significance of this Development

This development in the legal field is significant enough for the Education Sector as due to this development, a
Anti-Corruption Authorities are able to keep a check on the financial autonomous functionality of the Deemed
Universities. Earlier, in the absence of such a decree, Deemed Universities were free to demand financial
denominations in the name of different fees, without any dread of being caught up in any such regulation,
which would act as a threat for those practising unfairly and demanding huge drawings, other than the annual
fee, from the students.

 What is Deemed University ?

In order to understand the above mentioned development in a better manner, it is important to understand the
meaning of a Deemed University and its legal provisions. A number of educational institutes were setup in
India independent of the Government Aid, during the earlier Nationalist Movement. These institutes were not
encouraged enough in the beginning, but with the passage of time, the institutions that survived were given the
status of Universities and the method adopted for the same was the method of creating Universities by Charter.

Deemed Universities practice financial, academic and administrative autonomy in order to facilitate maximum
flexibility for the creation of a knowledge based society. Financial Autonomy is the freedom given to these
institutions to utilizes the resources provided to them with utmost efficiency. Academic autonomy provides aid
in developing a teaching pattern with multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary ways in order to cover all the
aspects including curricular and extra-curricular activities, providing students with a platforms to perform
holistically and then be evaluated. Administrative Autonomy gives the freedom to such Universities in the
framing of policies and by-laws, based on the specific needs of the institute.

 Legal Provisions Regarding Deemed Universities

Deemed University status has been recognised by the University Grants Commission, a statutory body set up by
the Union Government in the year 1956 and managed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, as an
institution that shows discrete and unique self-character that enjoys the privileges of a University along with
financial, academic and administrative autonomy.

All the universities are governed by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Section 3 of the
aforementioned act says that the UGC can provide advisory to the Government for the declaration of any higher
education institute, that is not a University, the status of a Deemed University.

 Classification of Universities in India

Universities in India can be classified in basically four categories:

 i. Central University- These Universities are set up by the act of Parliament.
ii. State University- The Universities that are set up by the acts of the Sate Legislature are called State
Universities.
iii. Deemed University- The institutes of higher studies that are not universities but due to the
exceptional calibre, these are given the status of Deemed Universities by the Central Government on
the advisory of the UGC.
iv. Private University- These institutes are set up for higher learning through a State or Central Act but
are sponsored by Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or of any
corresponding law in force at the same time.
 Critical Analysis

According to the golden rule of interpretation, any legislation is to be interpreted in a strict manner, keeping
into consideration whether or not there exist contradictions to the constitutional provisions.

In the case discussed above, legal provisions were interpreted by keeping the larger picture in mind. Be it the
interpretation of the term “public servant” or “any university”, as mentioned in the Prevention of Corruption
Act.

The interpretation of the term “any university” in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was done while
keeping in view the functions of a deemed university as recognised in the University Grants Commission Act,
1956. Under the said act, deemed universities are said to carry out the same functions as any other university set
up by the Central and the State Government, thus making it eligible to be included under the above mentioned
term.

Such a judgement can act as a milestone for many such cases where malpractices of the similar kind are being
followed but have not been reported. Having a broader spectrum for understanding the accountability od the
malpractitioners is an important step towards curbing corruption in the educational sector.

But a dimension the said judgement that cannot be ignored is that the Deemed Universities are institutes that
have Financial autonomy, i.e., they have the freedom to make decision on the fee structure that is to be
followed in a particular course. But, in the future cases might come up where a person in the governing body of
the University may be questioned over malpractice, even when the amount being asked from the student is
genuinely the part of the annual fee. In any such case, the person may look like someone involved in bribery,
while not being involved at all.

 Conclusion

In this recent development, the Supreme Court preferred having a wider spectrum to view the functionality of a
Deemed University and to understand the role of a Vice Chancellor or any such person at the equivalent level
who may be involved in the governing body of the University. The interpretation of the provisions involved
was done in a justified manner, making them valid and suitable for a Deemed University. Thus this judgment
can be viewed as a step towards making the Education Sector Corruption free and ensuring the development of
the students enrolled in such institutes. As stated in the Judgement, it is rightly said that corruption is persistent
and in the current times no sector remains untouched of the brutalities of such malpractices.