15.1 Bare Act Provision
1[212B.] Prohibition regarding giving of any grant to a University not declared by the Commission fit to receive such grant.— No grant shall be given by the Central Government, the Commission, or any other organisation receiving any funds from the Central Government, to a University which is established after the commencement of the University Grants Commission (Amendment) Act, 1972 (33 of 1972), unless the Commission has, after satisfying itself as to such matters as may be prescribed, declared such University to be fit for receiving such grant.]
Footnote from Bare Act
1. Ins. by Act 33 of 1972, s. 6 (w.e.f. 17-6-1972).
2. Section 12A renumbered as section 12B of that section by Act 59 of 1984, s. 3 (w.e.f. 1-10-1984).
15.2 Explanation
Section 12B of the UGC Act which confers power on the Commission to pass an order of prohibition regarding giving any grant to a University declared by the Commission not fit to receive such grant. This provision was inserted in the UGC Act through an Amendment Act, 1972 (33 of 1972) which came into force on 17.6.1972.[1] Colleges recognized under Section 12B of the UGC Act 1956 are eligible for central assistance. This section ensure that colleges meet certain standards of academic and infrastructural quality, allowing them to receive financial grants for development projects, research activities, and capacity building.[2]
The UGC Act with the objective of making provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities proposing to establish UGC has the main-function to inquire into the financial needs of the Universities, allocate and disperse the grants to the Universities out of the fund of the Commission etc., or withhold it in regard to a University not declared by the Commission fit to receive such grant has the power and duty to inspect, issue directions and frame Regulations in regard to such questions including the recommendation to affiliate or disaffiliate any College which has failed to maintain the expected standards. On the face of it, the powers and functions of the UGC are recommendatory and regulatory to determine the grants to the Universities and the Colleges to be disbursed or not. Even then on the face of it, it should be taken as general law dealing with such matter for the co-ordination and determination of standards in the Universities with financial control and incidental checking or supervision.[3]
15.3 Critical Analysis:
Procedural Delay: The declaration of fitness under Section 12B is often the most significant administrative hurdle for a newly established university. To be declared fit, a university must undergo a rigorous inspection under the UGC (Fitness of Certain Universities for Grants) Rules, 1974. This involves the appointment of an expert committee, a physical visit, and a compliance report. In practice, this process often takes 2 to 5 years. Universities need funds to build the infrastructure required to be declared fit, but they cannot receive Central grants until they are declared fit. This leads to a period of resource starvation for new state and private universities. Section 12B relies on matters as may be prescribed by regulations. When the UGC updates these regulations, existing applications are often sent back for re-verification, adding months of delay to the final declaration.[4]
Colonial Era Policy and Irrelevance: While Section 12B was an amendment in 1972, its philosophical roots are deeply colonial, emphasizing Centralized Paternalism. The provision reflects a colonial-style distrust of regional or local institutions. It assumes that a university established by a State Legislature is inherently unfit until UGC validates it. Here the conflict comes which was challenged time to time by various universities before the Court of Law. The policy of using a fitness declaration to block funds from any other organization is a relic of the Single Window Control model used by the British to ensure that no educational institution could thrive without direct Crown-monitored approval. NEP advocates for institutional autonomy and graded empowerment, the binary of Fit or Unfit model of Section 12B is becoming obsolete.[5] Modern education requires dynamic, project-based funding rather than a one-time fitness status that remains static for decades regardless of subsequent quality shifts.
Room for Misinterpretation: The brief text of Section 12B leaves several critical terms open to administrative and legal maneuvering. The phrase “any other organization” is having broad perspective but not clear about private of government institutes. Does it include the Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship or industry-sponsored grants channeled through government bodies? Universities often struggle to interpret if their students can receive individual fellowships if the university itself is not yet 12B fit. Also the phrase “satisfying itself” is having subjective satisfaction of UGC, as act is silent about its meaning. This allows for inconsistent application where one university is declared fit despite minor deficiencies, while another is blocked for years on similar grounds.[6] This also creates a room for bribe and corruption. This kind of vague languages is the reason behind political influence on educational organisations.
Constitutional Validity and Ultra Vires: Section 12B sits at the intersection of Union power and State rights under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. If the UGC uses Section 12B to block funds because a State University follows a state-mandated reservation policy or local language rule, it can be challenged as an ultra vires use of the standard-setting power to interfere with State Policy. While the UGC cannot be forced to give a grant, it must carry out the inspection and make a declaration in a timely manner. Failing to inspect a university for years is seen as a violation of Article 14. Critics argue that Section 12B is constitutionally fragile because it treats universities established by the same legislative authority differently based solely on a fitness declaration that is often delayed by the Commission’s own administrative lethargy.
[1] Asson. Of Mgmt. Of Private Colleges vs All India Council For Tech.Edu.& Anr, Supreme Court, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2004 Connected with CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5736-5745 OF 2004]
[2] Annual Report 2023-24, University Grants Commission, 2024
[3] M. Sambasiva Rao Alias Sambaiah And Ors. vs Osmania University [1997(1)ALT629]
[4] UGC (Fitness of Certain Universities for Grants) Rules, 1974
[5] National Education Policy 2020
[6] Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, [(2009) 4 SCC 590]
