10.1 Bare Act Provision
9. Temporary association of persons with the Commission for particular purposes.— (1) The Commission may associate with itself, in such manner and for such purposes as may be determined by regulations made under this Act, any person whose assistance or advice it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act.
(2) A person associated with it by the Commission under sub-section (1) for any purpose shall have a right to take part in the discussions relevant to that purpose, but shall not have a right to vote at a meeting of the Commission, and shall not be a member of any other purpose.
10.2 Explanation
Section 9 of the UGC Act, provides a mechanism for the Commission to seek external expertise without permanently altering its core composition. This is essentially a provision for ad-hoc consultancy or expert co-option. Courts have frequently interpreted Association or Co-option clauses in statutory bodies. The judiciary generally views these sections as a way to bridge the gap between administrative law and specialized knowledge.
Clause (1) empowers the Commission to bring in any person whose assistance or advice it deems necessary. The word may indicates that the Commission is not obligated to seek external advice but has the legal window to do so. The manner and purpose of such association must be determined by regulations made under the Act. This prevents arbitrary appointments and ensures that there is a documented process for why and how an expert is invited. Such Regulations can be enacted by UGC under Section 26 of the UGC Act. It shall be noted that the association must be for carrying out any of the provisions of this Act, such as determining standards of teaching or inspecting a university.[1]
While a body can associate experts, it cannot delegate its core statutory functions to them. When a statute allows for the association of experts, their role is advisory. The final decision must be an independent application of mind by the statutory body itself. If the UGC were to simply rubber-stamp an expert’s advice without independent deliberation, it could be seen as an abdication of its duty.[2]
The Clause (2) defines the legal status of the person brought in under Clause (1). The person can take part in discussions relevant to the specific purpose for which they were invited. Crucially, they are not Members of the Commission. They cannot vote on resolutions or policy decisions. This ensures that while experts can influence the thought process, the decision-making power remains strictly with the statutory members. The association is strictly limited to the specific task. They do not gain standing for any other purpose or general administrative functions of the UGC.
If an associated person participates in a vote, the resulting decision can be declared null and void. Though involving a selection committee, the principle applied is that the presence of an outsider can participate but not interfere with the statutory mandate. In the context of the UGC, if an associated expert influenced a vote, it would violate the defect in constitution protections of Section 8 because it is not a mere vacancy, but an illegal inclusion in the decision-making process.[3]
10.3 Critical Analysis
Procedural Delay: The provision for temporary association can be a double-edged sword regarding efficiency. As Clause (1) requires the manner and purpose to be determined by regulations, the UGC cannot simply invite an expert on a whim. They must follow established procedural norms. If the regulations are cumbersome, the process of bringing in an expert for an urgent matter, like a sudden paper leak or university crisis, can lead to administrative bottlenecks. However, once the person is associated, it usually speeds up technical decision-making by providing immediate clarity on complex academic or legal issues that the general members might not grasp.
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: Section 9 is generally considered constitutionally sound under Article 14 i.e. Equality before law and Article 19, as it is a reasonable exercise of legislative power to ensure the excellence of higher education. An act becomes ultra vires if the UGC uses Section 9 to bypass the official appointment process of Members by the Central Government. If a person is temporarily associated indefinitely to perform the duties of a Member without being appointed as one, it would be a colorable exercise of power. The statutory bodies must not use sub-clauses to circumvent the primary structure of the Act.[4]
Colonial Era Policy and Irrelevance: The concept of Co-option or Association is a direct legacy of the British administrative structure, specifically the British Education Acts and the University of London model. The colonial administration often created small executive councils and then associated local experts or specific stakeholders to give the appearance of inclusion without giving them actual power of voting. Critics argue that in a digital and democratic age, temporary association is a relic. Instead of a closed-door association, modern governance favors Public Consultation or Open Transparency models.
Room for Misinterpretation: A major critique of Section 9 is the lack of Accountability. The phrase “assistance or advice it may desire” in Clause (1) provides vast discretionary power. Associated persons are not Public Servants in the same stringent sense as regular Members. There is no Conflict of Interest clause in Section 9. This means the UGC can technically associate a person who might have a vested interest in the decision, provided they don’t vote. An associated person might be a professor from a private university giving advice on regulations that affect their own institution. Since they are not full members, they might not be subject to the same rigorous Declaration of Interest protocols, creating a Regulatory Capture scenario.
[1] P. Suseela & Ors. Vs. Univ. Grants Commn. & Ors. [8 SCC 129]
[2] University of Delhi v. Raj Singh [1995 SCC (L&S) 118]
[3] Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar [2019 INSC 1387]
[4] Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’, Yash Pal Committee Report, March 2009
