5.1 Bare Act Provision
CHAPTER II: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION
4. Establishment of the Commission.— (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, there shall be established a Commission by the name of the University Grants Commission.
(2) The said Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
5.2 Explanation
Section 4 of the 1956 Act relates to the establishment of the University Grants Commission and under sub-section (1) thereof, with effect from such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint, there shall be established a Commission by the name of the University Grants Commission. Section 4(2) stipulates that the Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.[1] The UGC Act under which the UGC has been created has supervening influence over all other Legislations on the subject of education for maintenance of minimum standards in the country.[2]
The University Grants Commission (UGC), established under Section 4 of the UGC Act, 1956, plays a pivotal role in higher education by funding universities and colleges, establishing regulations, and monitoring the implementation of policies to enhance overall quality.[3] The UGC is structured into several bureaus and divisions, each handling specific administrative responsibilities related to academic, financial, and research activities in higher education institutions. It is the primary duty and responsibility of the UGC to determine and coordinate the standards of teaching, curriculum, and the level of examinations across various universities in the country.[4] To fulfill these objectives effectively, the UGC’s role becomes essential right from the outset. The nature, volume, and content of courses of study must be ascertained and finalized before the commencement of each academic session. Achieving proper standards of teaching is impossible without adequate infrastructural facilities on campus, including well-equipped classrooms, libraries, laboratories, qualified teaching staff of the requisite calibre, and a balanced student-teacher ratio.[5]
Although all these roles are specifically mentioned in statute and it is evident that these are all the primary requirements, UGC is always been criticized and held responsible for low standards of higher education in India. In 2026, it is the scenario that degree holders including PhD are not at all job ready in this country. A student spends its 3 to 5 years in degree college depending upon stream of education, but still he/she is not ready for job in lack of practical knowledge. No innovation and only outdated syllabus is the unfortunate truth.
I am originally an engineer, pass-out in 2004-05, I was not job ready as I was not knowing many things. I was just having skill of typing not more than that and started working at my husband’s office who is an Advocate. My mother-in-law was also practicing advocate when I got married. I use to assist them, after birth of my first child so that I can enjoy my motherhood. While assisting them I developed skill of drafting, writing and editing, which lead to my law degree, after a gap of 16 years after my first degree. It is funny to mention here that I use to ask doubts about study to my mother-in-law, and she explained me everything about various legal subjects. While discussing she told me that syllabus of law have not changed in so many years. She was pass-out of 1980s, when I was just a student of primary education. Even I go through engineering syllabus I found hardly 10% of change although there are huge technical advancements going on. All spheres are evolving day by day, but UGC is not even trying to cop-up with this evolution. What this authority is doing? As we are not having any skill-oriented syllabus, many of the students opt for private courses and spend huge money on it. In leadership of UGC education had become a business.
5.3 Critical Analysis
Section 4 of the UGC Act, 1956, provides the legal foundation for the Commission as a statutory body. As this book/article series is dedicated to UGC law, let us critically analyse of its provisions, after a short story of my life.
Procedural Delay: The phrase “With effect from such date as the Central Government may… appoint” creates a potential for administrative lag. Sub-section (1) grants the executive absolute discretion over the commencement date. While the UGC was established in 1956, this notification-based model often leads to delays in the operationalization of newly amended sections or the constitution of new authorities under the Act. It relies on the efficiency of the Official Gazette process rather than a fixed statutory timeline. The Supreme Court noted that when a legislature leaves the date of commencement to the executive, it cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to bring the law into force, highlighting the inherent delay-prone nature of such clauses.[6]
Education sector is highly civil in nature, hence its laws are also highly civil in nature, to reduce the procedural delays and eventually burden on judiciary, at-least law framing authority can specify time-limits for each and every activity involved. Absence of time bound schedule to perform duties of administrative or executing bodies is one of the reasons of pending procedures and hence judiciary is burdened with those matters also which are civil in nature.
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: Section 4(2) establishes the UGC as a body corporate with the power to sue and be sued, which is constitutionally consistent. This section is well within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 66 of List I. However, an ultra vires argument arises if the Commission’s corporate powers are used to bypass the Central Government’s overall accountability to Parliament. As a body corporate, the UGC acts as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, meaning its actions are subject to Fundamental Rights. The Court held that statutory corporations, like UGC in this series/book, are “authorities” within Article 12.[7] If Section 4 were interpreted to mean the UGC is a private corporate entity immune from constitutional writs, that interpretation would be ultra vires. We need such body which may work independently, but also it should be sheltered under the umbrella of Article 12, so that any fundamental or statutory right of ordinary citizens violated by such body can be questioned in Court of law.
Colonial Era Policy and Relevance: The “Body Corporate” and “Common Seal” language is a classic feature of 19th-century British Company Law and the Statutory Corporations Act.In the digital age, the requirement for a “common seal” (Section 4(2)) is largely symbolic and increasingly irrelevant. Most modern jurisdictions have moved toward digital authentication. Furthermore, the centralized “Commission” model follows the University Grants Committee of United Kingdom model of 1919. In a decentralized, federal democracy, this centralized corporate structure is criticized for failing to give adequate representation to diverse state-level educational needs.[8] Although National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocating the dissolution of the UGC in its current form to be replaced by the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI), but no such law has been passed till 2026 by the Parliament of India even though near about 15 sessions had been held.
Room for Misinterpretation: The provision that the Commission “shall by the said name sue and be sued” can lead to jurisdictional confusion. There is ambiguity regarding whether legal actions must be initiated against the Commission’s headquarters in Delhi or its regional offices. Misinterpretation also occurs regarding the liability of individual members versus the body corporate. While the entity is liable, the Act is silent on whether a common seal is required for every administrative circular to be legally binding. There are lot of cases in which UGC is made party.
[1] Madhu Bahuguna vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission [2010 SCC Utt 18]
[2] Sikkim Manipal University vs Indira Gandhi National Open University [AIR 2016 (NOC) 155 (SIK.)]
[3] Annual Report 2023-24, University Grants Commission, 2024
[4] N.Ramesh V. Sibi Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 25
[5] Bar Council of India v. Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences & Others, Madras High Court – W.A.No.929 and 933 of 2006
[6] A.K. Roy v. Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 271]
[7] Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) 1 SCC 421
[8] Osmania University Teachers Association vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr [1987 AIR 2034]
![SET Paper 1 And GJ SET Life Science Books Combo [2 Book] | Best S...](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51ARcUmbx6L.jpg)