Prof. B. P. Maithani has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Sikkim Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2025, and the Uttarakhand Private Universities Act, 2023/2024. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, was lodged on 29 August 2026 (Diary No. 53108/2026) and has since been registered as W.P.(C) No. 1129/2026. Sanjai Kumar Pathak is appearing as Advocate for the petitioner, and the respondents named are the Union of India, the State of Sikkim and its Higher Education Department, the State of Uttarakhand and its Department of Higher Education, and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Concern Over Repeal of Individual University Acts
The petition’s central grievance concerns the repeal of individual State Acts under which private universities were separately established, and their subsequent absorption into a common, or “umbrella,” legislation. According to the petition, approximately 50 separate private university Acts stand repealed under the impugned framework, a development the petitioner contends could create legal and academic uncertainty for a large number of universities, students, faculty members and other stakeholders.
UGC Regulations and the Requirement of Separate State Acts
The petition places particular reliance on Regulation 3.1 of the UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, which it reads as requiring every private university to be established through a separate State Act and to comply with the UGC Act, 1956. On this basis, the petitioner argues that repealing individual university Acts in favour of a common statute is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory framework governing private universities, and may raise serious questions concerning the statutory status of the affected universities, the recognition and validity of their degrees, and the academic and professional future of their students.
Constitutional Division of Powers Between Centre and States
The petition raises questions of constitutional distribution of legislative power between Parliament and the State Legislatures in the field of higher education. It contends that the coordination and determination of standards in higher education fall within the Union’s domain under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, and that the impugned State legislation, by establishing a parallel regulatory framework over admissions, fee fixation,academic administration, governance, inspection and institutional oversight, substantially overlaps with the regulatory domain occupied by Parliament through the UGC Act, 1956, and the regulations framed under it. The petition further raises questions under Articles 245, 246 and 254 concerning the legislative competence of the States relative to the central framework governing higher education.
Reliance on the Supreme Court’s Prof. Yashpal Judgment
The petition places substantial reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prof. Yashpal & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2005), whose principles the petitioner submits are directly relevant to the constitutional validity of the legislative mechanism adopted by Sikkim and Uttarakhand. It also cites State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, and Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh in support of its constitutional arguments, contending that the changes made by the impugned laws do not cure the underlying legal infirmity and require judicial review in light of these established principles.
Students’ Interests at the Centre of the PIL
The petitioner has stated that the PIL has not been filed for any personal, institutional or private gain, but in the larger public interest, and particularly to safeguard the academic and legal interests of present and prospective students, including those from poor, rural, tribal and economically weaker backgrounds. The petitioner has further submitted that the issue is not confined to Sikkim and Uttarakhand: were similar legislative models to be adopted by other States, the resulting inconsistency could have wider implications for the national framework governing higher education and for the UGC’s regulatory role.
Interim Relief Sought Before the Supreme Court
The petition seeks interim relief staying the operation and enforcement of the Sikkim and Uttarakhand Acts pending disposal of the proceedings, and restraining the respondents from taking further action under the impugned legislation until then. In its main prayer, the petition asks the Court to declare both Acts unconstitutional, ultra vires and void, and to direct the respondents not to give effect to or implement their provisions.
A Matter of Wider Significance for Higher Education
The writ petition brings into focus questions concerning the establishment and statutory status of private universities, institutional autonomy, the regulatory role of the UGC, the constitutional division of powers between the Union and the States, and the protection of students’ academic interests. The petitioner has emphasised the need for a regulatory framework that is constitutionally sound, nationally consistent, and capable of protecting the interests of students, faculty and other stakeholders.
