13.3 Critical Analysis
Section 12 is the heart of the UGC Act, 1956, defining the Commission’s General Duty to maintain educational standards and manage the flow of public funds. While it grants broad powers, the structure of these powers remains a subject of intense debate regarding efficiency, autonomy, and modern relevance.
Procedural Delay: The Power to Inquire, Allocate, and Disburse under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (cc), & (ccc) is the most criticized aspect of Section 12. The Inquiry into financial needs under Clause (a) often involves a multi-layered bureaucratic process involving University Planning Boards, UGC Expert Committees, Ministry of Finance approvals, etc. This fragmented funding model leads to institutional stagnation, where universities wait years for grants while inflation erodes the value of the allocated funds.
Room for Interpretation: The phrase “as it may deem necessary or appropriate” under clauses (c) and (cc), gives the Commission nearly unfettered discretion. This has led to allegations of political funding, where institutions aligned with current government priorities receive faster development grants compared to those that do not. Clause (i) allows the UGC to demand all rules and regulations of a university. Critically, this can clash with the Autonomy of State Universities established under State Acts. When the UGC uses Clause (i) to dictate internal administrative matters, it is often challenged as an overreach into the State’s legislative domain.
Colonial Era Policy and irrelevance: The Advisory Role under Clauses (d), (e), (f), and (g) is rooted in the British model of the University Grants Committee of UK. In a colonial context, the State wanted a buffer between the University and the Crown. However, in modern India, this advice often becomes a directive. Modern governance needs to separate the Funding from Regulation. Section 12 fuses them, allowing the UGC to use money as a stick to enforce some unnecessary compliances like those under 2026 Equity Regulations compliance, which critics say stifles innovation. The colonial-era reliance on small groups of Associated Experts under Section 9 and 12 can be replaced by AI-driven data monitoring and Graded Autonomy in today’s AI era. The NEP 2020 explicitly states that the current UGC system is fragmented and needs a light but tight regulatory overhaul.[1]
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: The Supreme Court clarified that while the UGC can recommend under Clause (d), and these recommendations are not mere suggestions, they are the basis for maintaining standards under Entry 66 of List I. If a University ignores these advices, it risks losing its status or funding under Section 14.[2] Clauses (h) and (i) are vital for the Determination of Standards. The Supreme Court held that for the UGC to perform its duties, it must have the right to demand information on standards and faculty qualifications.[3]
Clause (j) is the most dangerous clause from a legal perspective. The UGC has used Clause (j) to notify sweeping regulations, like the UGC (Promotion of Equity) Regulations, 2026, which were recently stayed by the Supreme Court in January 2026.[4] The Court observed that using general incidental powers to create criminal-like penalties or hosteling segregation rules might exceed the statutory mandate of maintaining educational standards.
[1] The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020
[2] University of Delhi v. Raj Singh [(1994) Supp (3) SCC 516]
[3] UGC v. Sadhana Chaudhary [996 INSC 1061]
[4] Interim Order in Mritunjay Tiwari v. University Grants Commission Dt. 29.01.2026
