Were NUJS Online Courses Illegal? Yes.
Written by Arjun Agarwal, in purely personal capacity
TL;DR: iPleaders-run NUJS online courses were started in 2012 and ran up to 10.05.2018 in
evident violation of the statutorily-mandated regulator, Distance Education Bureau, University
Grants Commission’s then extant regulations. Under the extant regulations, running online and
hybrid courses was outrightly not permitted. In 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had
already settled that the extant rules and regulations, as mandated by the UGC, had statutory
force and were therefore mandatorily applicable to all Universities.

Recently, Mr. Abhyuday Agarwal, Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer, Intelligent
Legal Risk Management Solutions LLP (iPleaders), authored a piece titled ‘Are NUJS
Online Courses Illegal?’ An advance copy of the said piece was shared with me. I write
this seeking to clarify my stance on the contents of the said piece. After I shared an
advance copy of my original write-up with iPleaders (the text in black), iPleaders
shared an advance copy of a Rejoinder to my original write-up, additional responses
whereof are incorporated herein (the text in red).
iPleaders ad nauseum claims that the courts will vindicate its stance soon. However,
thus far it has only served arbitration notices on NUJS for their pending dues.
iPleaders is yet to and is not known to have filed any writ petitions challenging the 32nd
NUJS Academic Council’s (AC) decision to suspend iPleaders’ online courses. In fact,
iPleaders’ students’ W.P. No. 25595 (W) of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Calcutta was recently dismissed on the basis that it merely challenged NUJS’ belated
notices to suspend/ terminate distance education courses and not the 32nd AC’s
decision itself. I can only explain the legal position that has been accepted by the AC
and Executive Council (EC) to iPleaders; I cannot understand it for them.
At the outset, I wish to thank iPleaders for revealing the story arc on how their journey
began at our common alma mater, the WB National University of Juridical Sciences
(NUJS) and the explanations concerning why iPleaders Memoranda of Understanding
were drafted in a certain way. I also did not previously have any access to the financial
details that iPleaders mentions in the said piece.
I agree with iPleaders that the various inquiries instituted by the 61st and 62nd NUJS
EC meetings dated 12.05.2018 and 29.09.2018, respectively, including the ones
dealing with the distance education mess, have not made any meaningful progress.

 Indeed, my articles in The Statesman and The Wire and the Student Juridical
Association’s (SJA) recent petitions to the Chief Justice of India and Chancellor of
NUJS, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and the EC have highlighted this issue. If iPleaders can
actually persuade or compel the NUJS authorities to do a thorough, time-bound
inquiry, more power to iPleaders!
Before I proceed to clarify my stance, I must underline that I do not represent, advise
or hold the brief for NUJS. This entire write-up has been written by me in purely
personal capacity. It does not, in any way, represent the views of the present NUJS
students, the NUJS administration or my present employer.
While at NUJS, I came across compelling evidence that clearly established violations
of distance education regulations mandated by the erstwhile Distance Education
Council of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU DEC) and subsequently
the Distance Education Bureau, University Grants Commission (UGC DEB) and
produced it before the 32nd NUJS AC and the 61st EC. I have never contested
iPleaders’ claim that NUJS’ AC and EC approved many of their courses and/ or
appreciated their endeavour. I have only underlined that the powers that be in NUJS
never made full and honest disclosures about the necessary legal compliances to the
governing bodies. Evidence that became available recently conclusively proves that
this was deliberately done.
It also appears that the iPleaders’ piece clubs me with unnamed “others” and directs
me to apologise. I firmly stand by the factual and legal assertions in the three
representations viz. SJA’s petition to the 32nd AC dated 09.05.2018; SJA’s petition to
the 61st EC dated 11.05.2018 and my recent letter to the Chancellor dated 15.03.2019.
I

also deny the false, presumptuous and

malicious allegation

that

these

representations were unsubstantiated. SJA’s representations to the 32nd AC and the
61st EC have been in the public domain since August last year. Therefore, I fail to see
why Abhyuday is questioning the obvious substantiation therein.
The founders of iPleaders, in their individual capacities and/ or otherwise, are fully
entitled to their interpretations and assumptions, which in my view are entirely
misplaced. In the following passages, I attempt to outline the legal position along with
providing certain factual clarifications (ENCLOSURE-1) and posing certain questions to
iPleaders (ENCLOSURE-2).

 This write-up is by no means exhaustive. Nothing in the iPleaders’ piece ought to be
deemed to be admitted by me on account of non-traverse or otherwise, unless
expressly so stated herein. I will respond more comprehensively at a time and place of
my choosing, if the need so arises.
THE UNEQUIVOCAL LEGAL POSITION: WHEN IN DOUBT, DON’T!
Background
The twin thrusts of my stance have always been on: did NUJS ever have the requisite
mandatory approvals in place, whether from the erstwhile IGNOU DEC or later from
the UGC DEB to be a distance education provider and run the courses (online, offline,
hybrid) in partnership with private concerns such as iPleaders or directly under its own
name; and in relevant instances, did the private partners such as iPleaders know about
the lack of such mandatory approvals? The answer to the first is in the negative, while
the answer to the second, as admitted by iPleaders in their piece, is in the affirmative.
In their piece, rather than addressing the first point (regarding lack of the requisite
mandatory approvals), iPleaders has sought to raise some rather interesting questions.
The primary contention by iPleaders is that distance education regulations mandated
by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC and subsequently the UGC DEB were not mandatory at
all. In this regard, it appears that iPleaders is not only claiming that its own online
courses did not require any mandatory approvals but also making the overbroad
assertion that no courses (including offline ones) required such approvals. In my view,
such a view is patently erroneous on both counts.
Before delving into the relevant case law, it must be stated for greater clarity that
previously IGNOU DEC, in part, regulated distance education. At the time, IGNOU
DEC had notified the ‘Guidelines of DEC on Minimum Requirements for Recognition of
ODL Institutions’ (DEC Guidelines). On 28.05.2013, a letter was issued to the Vice
Chancellors of all Universities informing them that henceforth the UGC DEB will
takeover “all regulatory responsibilities” of the IGNOU DEC. On 17.06.2013, the UGC
DEB adopted the same DEC Guidelines. Admittedly, iPleaders courses took off in
2012. These DEC Guidelines, if mandatory, required detailed compliances and were
therefore applicable to all iPleaders courses (offline, online and hybrid) since 2012. In

 fact, admittedly, iPleaders assisted in preparing the NUJS’ detailed application based
on the DEC Guidelines. By iPleaders’ own admission, this application, even though
dated 26.11.2014, was curiously sent out and received by the UGC only in February
2015. iPleaders appears to claim that NUJS never received any formal response or
communication from the UGC DEB in this regard.
On 23.06.2017, the UGC DEB notified the UGC (Open and Distance Learning)
Regulations, 2017 (ODL Regulations) in supersession of the earlier DEC Guidelines.
The said ODL Regulations were set to be operationalised for the year 2018-19.
Meanwhile, all distance education courses (online, offline and hybrid) run in
collaboration with private players such as iPleaders were suspended by the 32nd AC
held on 10.05.2018 pursuant to SJA’s written and oral representation. Two days later,
the 61st EC held on 12.05.2018 ratified this AC decision. Thereafter, the UGC DEB
notified specialised regulations for online courses viz. UGC (Online Courses or
Programmes) Regulations, 2018 (Online Regulations) on 04.07.2018, patterned on
the same lines as the earlier ODL Regulations. The 62nd EC held on 29.09.2018
subsequently resolved that “all the online courses shall be stopped forthwith”.
Therefore, since iPleaders’ courses were and have been suspended/ terminated since
the 32nd AC held on 10.05.2018, there is no question of these ODL Regulations/ Online
Regulations’ applicability on iPleaders courses run in association with NUJS.
Binding Nature of the DEC Guidelines
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clarified innumerable times that the
regulations mandated by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC and the UGC DEB in this regard
are mandatorily applicable. The aforesaid three representations that I continue to stand
by, contrary to iPleaders assertions, did cite the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s
Judgement in Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and
Tourism Department and Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 590] (Annamalai), relevant excerpts
whereof are reproduced hereunder (with underlining for emphasis):
“41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act in
substitution of the formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of
ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal
system and an informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is
imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination and

 determination of standards in universities. The purport and object for which it was
enacted must be given full effect.
42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether
conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in
terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide
amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional
universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum
standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to
be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in
universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The
powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature.
Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the
Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in
respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and
clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.
…
55. The submission of Mr K. Parasaran that as in compliance with the provisions
contained in Regulation 7, UGC had been provided with information in regard to
instructions through non-formal/distance education relating to the observance
thereof by itself, in our opinion, would not satisfy the legal requirement. It is one
thing to say that informations have been furnished but only because no action had
been taken by UGC in that behalf, the same would not mean that an illegality has
been cured. The power of relaxation is a statutory power. It can be exercised in a
case of this nature.
56. Grant of relaxation cannot be presumed by necessary implication only because
UGC did not perform its duties. Regulation 2 of the 1985 Regulations being
imperative in character, non-compliance therewith would entail its consequences.
The power of relaxation conferred on UGC being in regard to the date of
implementation or for admission to the first or second degree courses or to give
exemption for a specified period in regard to other clauses in the Regulations on
the merit of each case do not lead to a conclusion that such relaxation can be
granted automatically. The fact that exemption is required to be considered on the
merit of each case is itself a pointer to show that grant of relaxation by necessary
implication cannot be inferred. If mandatory provisions of the statute have not been
complied with, the law will take its own course. The consequences will ensue.
57. Relaxation, in our opinion, furthermore cannot be granted in regard to the basic
things necessary for conferment of a degree. When a mandatory provision of a
statute has not been complied with by an administrative authority, it would be void.
Such a void order cannot be validated by inaction.”
(emphasis supplied)

Evidently, the regulations and circulars released by the UGC DEB with respect to
distance education are mandatorily binding on all Universities, including NUJS.

 The DEC Guidelines, applicable at the relevant time, required mandatory approvals for
all (offline) distance education courses, as relevant excerpts reproduced hereunder
show (with underlining for emphasis):
“The DEC, as an apex agency, is responsible for recognizing ODL institutions in
India. It is mandatory for all institutions to seek prior approval of the DEC for all
existing and new programmes offered through distance mode. The guidelines for
seeking approval together with necessary proformas for furnishing requisite
information are issued by the DEC.”
(emphasis supplied)

iPleaders’ Rejoinder seeks to distinguish Annamalai not by citing any legally relevant
distinctions in the facts, but by merely mentioning the facts and the disposition in
Annamalai, thereby claiming an irrelevant dis-analogy. The response evinces a
complete lack of depth. In any case, in Sikkim Manipal University vs. Indira Gandhi
National Open University, Distant Education Council and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 04 of 2013:
MANU/SI/0058/2015], the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim has cited Annamalai and
reached a similar conclusion regarding the relaxation of provisions of the DEC
Guidelines.
The Annamalai decision unequivocally holds that rules and regulations prescribed by
the UGC are minimum standards of education and therefore binding on all Universities,
especially in matters concerning distance education. However, iPleaders conveniently
omits any reference to the paragraphs 41, 42 and 55 (quoted above).
iPleaders further claims that Annamalai fortifies their argument that non-recognition by
the UGC DEB did not make their courses illegal. Old habits die hard! Unsurprisingly,
iPleaders has sought to “unwittingly misrepresent” my argument. I cited Annamalai to
bring forth the broad powers of the UGC and the statutory nature of its extant
regulations, not to put across the obvious meaning of the term “illegality” which is
defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) as: “an act that is not authorised
by law”.
In any case, there are several cases wherein various courts have held that the grant of
unrecognised distance education Degrees is, in and of itself, an illegal act.
Illustratively, in Kartar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. [C.W.P. No. 1640 of 2008:
MANU/PH/3579/2012] (Kartar Singh), the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

 has clarified (albeit, in the context of technical courses), relevant excerpts whereof
hereunder (with underlining for emphasis):
“59. The powers and functions of the Distance Education Council are for the
promotion of the Open University/Distance Education System, its coordinated
development, and the determination of its standards, and in particular which
includes, inter-alia, the following: …
60. The Distance Education Council issued guidelines in the year 2006 for
regulating the Establishment and Operation of Open and Distance Learning (ODL)
Institutions in India. It was noticed that distance education mode has become purely
commercial venture with little or no attention being paid to the quality of education
offered to learners. The Distance Education Institutes requiring approval from DEC
includes the conventional universities established by an Act of Parliament or State
Legislature/Deemed to be universities declared by the Central Government under
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It also specified that the
Institutions shall furnish undertaking for the following: …
62. The Distance Education Council (DEC) published a hand-book in the year 2007
for recognition of open and distance learning institutions probably in terms of the
above said decision. Such hand-book contemplated that it should be mandatory for
all institutions to seek prior approval of DEC for all existing and new programmes
offered through distance mode. …
219. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was necessary for the deemed
to be Universities to seek approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that
the deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical education in
violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations framed by the
Commission not only when they started such courses but also in establishing study
centres outside their territorial limits and in subjects for which they were not granted
deemed to be university status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be
Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the
actions of either the Commission or DEC.”
(emphasis supplied)

Notably, in Kartar Singh, the Court is only concerned with the phase when the
erstwhile IGNOU DEC was in charge of enforcing the DEC Guidelines. Goes without
saying, per Annamalai, UGC DEB had far wider powers in this regard once it took over
in 2013.
Outright Non-permissibility of Online and Hybrid Courses, Run by iPleaders
Two UGC DEB notices dated 25.01.2016 and 06.10.2016, respectively, are extremely
relevant with respect to the outright non-permissibility of online and hybrid courses
(including online examinations). The contents of the notice dated 06.10.2016 are
reproduced hereunder (with underlining for emphasis):

 “As you are aware that while seeking recognition for the years 2015-16 and 201617, the institutions submitted an affidavit agreeing to various conditions including
that "no online programme leading to award of degree/ certification shall be offered
by the University/ institution until a policy is framed and approved by UGC in this
regard”.
However, it has been noted by UGC that some institutions/universities which have
been approved by UGC to impart education through open and distance learning
mode are offering to conduct 'Online Examinations'.
The matter was considered and it was observed that creditable online examination
system for large number of learners involves a lot of complexity of managerial
issues, availability of reliable and robust alternative networks connecting all
examination centres, highly secured ICT systems; development of difficulty level
based huge question banks etc., requiring heavy initial expenditure and running
costs. It was also observed that so far, UGC has not laid down any standard
parameters for holding the examinations 'Online'.
It is therefore, requested that your university/institution should not conduct 'Online
Examinations' until such time that the UGC Guidelines are formulated and made
mandatory applicable.”
(emphasis supplied)

This is further corroborated by the following Explanation to Regulation 6(3) of the
Online Regulations:
“Explanation.– For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that prior to these
regulations, the commission has not given recognition for an Online Course or
Programme to any Higher Educational Institution.”
(emphasis supplied)

Recently, the UGC DEB clarified in an RTI response that it is yet to approve any online
courses. As stated earlier, the Online Regulations were notified on 04.07.2018.
Therefore, NUJS was never permitted to run the iPleaders’ online courses that it
ran up to the SJA’s intervention at the 32nd AC held on 10.05.2018 in view of the
aforesaid Explanation read with the aforesaid UGC DEB notice dated 06.10.2016.
In its Rejoinder, iPleaders has sought to label the aforesaid clinching public notice
dated 06.10.2016 as a “tangential circular”. It is settled that by their very nature,
circulars are clarificatory. The said circular dated 06.10.2016 merely clarified that
online and hybrid courses are not to be conducted till the UGC DEB notified the Online
Regulations (04.07.2018). This is the general prohibition on all online and hybrid
courses, which was merely clarified, vide the said circular.

 iPleaders erroneously argues that since NUJS was not a recipient of the said
06.10.2016 circular, the position of law clarified therein is not applicable to NUJS.
Admittedly, this notice was not marked specifically to NUJS since NUJS never had the
requisite approvals for even the otherwise allowed offline courses. In effect, iPleaders
is arguing that NUJS could exempt ‘itself’ from the mandatory applicability of a blanket
prohibition against all online and hybrid courses applicable to all Universities by simply
not complying with the extant DEC Guidelines with respect to its offline courses. Such
a suggestion is absurd! No one can benefit from their own wrong. Annamalai clarifies
that any relaxation is not possible for “basic things necessary for conferment of a
degree”, much less a self-relaxation as argued by iPleaders. In any case, while
specifically marked to certain Universities, the said circular was notified to the world at
large via publication on the UGC DEB website’s Notice Board.
Lack of Approval for (otherwise permitted) Offline Courses
Since the DEC Guidelines were mandatorily applicable at the relevant time (2012 –
10.05.2018), to my mind, only one more question remains to be answered: did NUJS
have the requisite approvals? Not once has anyone, including iPleaders, ever claimed
that NUJS had the requisite mandatory approvals from the erstwhile IGNOU DEC or
the UGC DEB. This question is put to rest by a recent response dated 08.03.2019
received from the UGC DEB in response to my 22.01.2019 Right to Information (RTI)
application.
False Distinction Between Certificate/ Diploma Courses and ‘Other’ Courses: A
Line in the Sand
While slightly convoluted vis-à-vis the primary argument pertaining to the so-called
optional nature of the UGC DEB’s extant regulations, the piece circulated by
Abhyuday, makes another erroneous argument claiming, “very importantly, while the
right to confer degrees is specifically conferred upon Universities as per Section 22 of
the UGC Act, the provision does not mention diploma or certificate courses” and
further, “certificate and diploma courses, not being degrees, are treated differently by
UGC and the regulatory mechanism”. He eventually and erroneously concludes,
“online courses without UGC recognition could not be termed as illegal”. This claim,
that seems to argue that recognising (and not recognising) ‘Certificate’/ ‘Diploma’
courses was earlier outside UGC DEB’s jurisdiction, is clearly belied by references to

 both Degrees and Certificate/ Diploma courses in the DEC Guidelines. For instance,
the DEC Guidelines recommend, “it is desirable to have programmes quantified in
terms of credits” and further prescribes the following norms for such a credit system,
as excerpted hereunder:

The DEC Guidelines yet again refer to both Degrees and Certificates/ Diplomas, as
excerpted hereunder:

This is further corroborated by the fact that UGC DEB vide its notice dated 16.12.2016,
in fact, informed that:

 “It has been decided that IGNOU, New Delhi and State Open Universities (S0Us),
which has got approval from UGC to offer programmes through distance mode,
may be allowed to offer Certificate and Diploma programmes of the duration of one
year or less in non-technical, non­medical, non-para medical fields and excluding
the programmes which require hands on training.”
(emphasis supplied)

It is pertinent to clarify here that such an approval was deemed to have been granted
to already sanctioned State Open Universities and the IGNOU for running offline
Certificate and Diploma programmes only. Contrary to iPleaders’ misleading claims,
the very fact that the extant Online Regulations now recognise compliant ‘Diploma’ and
‘Certificate’ courses establishes that the term “Degree” as used at various places in
Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 always included them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has implicitly clarified this in Annamalai while discussing the broad nature of
UGC’s powers.
Admittedly, iPleaders assisted in preparing the NUJS’ detailed application based on
the DEC Guidelines and did, in fact, fill in the 2009 Handbook with the details of
(presumably all) its online Diploma/ Certificate courses at the time. However, iPleaders
is now turning around and curiously seeking to draw this convenient line in the sand to
justify the obvious illegalities.
An argument materially similar to iPleaders’ contention has been rejected by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras (albeit, in the context of medical education) in Dr. V.
Balaji and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. No. 18829 of 2008: 2008 (6) CTC
568], as excerpted hereunder (with underlining for emphasis):
“20. A perusal of the changes made by the 42nd amendment in the State List and
the Concurrent List would unmistakably show that the intention which is reflected by
the said amendment is to confer the Parliament with an extensive power to legislate
in the field of higher and technical education in order to maintain uniform standards
throughout India and to take away from the State List legislative power by deletion
of Entry 11 and also by amending Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Therefore, the
State's exercise of executive power must be made consistent with the aforesaid
constitutional Scheme of curbing of its legislative power in respect of higher and
technical education. If the State cannot make law in an area in view of lack of its
legislative competence, as it cannot do in the field of higher and technical
education, especially when it is occupied by the said Act, which is a central law, it
cannot issue executive orders in that area. That is the mandate of Article 162.
21. The argument of the learned counsel for the State that since the certificate
course in the field of medical education is not a recognized qualification under the

 schedule to the said Act, the State does not need the permission of the Central
Government or the Medical Council of India to start the said certificate course is
equally untenable. If the State's argument is upheld, then it would amount to
allowing the State to run a parallel course, whether it is an under-graduate or postgraduate course of 6 months or one year, even though it is contrary to any postgraduate course, which is run with the permission of the Medical Council of India. In
the instant case, it has been admitted by the State that the Post Graduate Medical
Course is now running in Medical Colleges in the State with the permission of the
Medical Council of India. Therefore, by the impugned G.O the State is seeking to
introduce in exercise of its so-called executive power, a course of a different nature
on the same subject, may be for a smaller duration, and by giving it a different
name. The same is nothing but a course in medical education.
22. To our judgment, this is clearly not permissible having regard to the
constitutional scheme discussed above which controls the legislative power of the
State in higher and technical education. A Certificate Course in Diabetology, which
is a speciality, certainly falls in that category.
…
28. It is, therefore, clear that State cannot by introducing the course in medical
education bring about a situation in which it is impossible to ensure co-ordination in
matters of medical education by MCI. If the Court allows the Certificate Course
introduced by the impugned G.O. to go on, in that case in diabetology there will be
two parallel courses one is for one year with the permission of MCI and the other is
a Certificate Course in Diabetology without its permission. This is certainly
incompatible with a ‘common pattern of action’ and can be prevented in view of
Entry 66 of List I. In other words, without the permission of the Central Government
and MCI, no course in medical education, even if it is a certificate course in
diabetology can be started. Apart from the provisions of Article 162, which provides
that the executive power of the State cannot be extended to areas in respect of
which it cannot exercise legislative power, the executive power of the State is also
subject to other constitutional limitations.”
(emphasis supplied)

Evidently, the aforesaid decision belies iPleaders’ argument regarding special
treatment of Diploma/ Certificate courses as well as iPleaders’ argument regarding the
special status of a statutory State Government university such as NUJS. It further
appears to suggest that in matters of education, extant regulations of Central
Government’s statutory regulator(s) are considered to exhaustively lay down the
contours of permissibility.
With respect to the aforesaid notice dated 16.12.2016, I merely sought to show that
there is no difference in UGC’s power to regulate various types of courses, including
Certificate and Diploma courses. In this regard, iPleaders now unequivocally admits
that the UGC DEB has jurisdiction to regulate Certificate and Diploma courses but
claims that the UGC DEB never exercised such a jurisdiction till the Online Regulations
were notified in 2018. This is entirely untrue and belied by the clarificatory circular

 dated 06.10.2016, quoted above. The DEC Guidelines, as quoted above, made prior
approval by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC and its successor, UGC DEB mandatory for all
institutions, for all distance educations courses including Diploma/ Certificate courses.
In any case, when a general prohibition on all online and hybrid courses is applicable
(as shown earlier), the lack of a specific prohibition cannot justify the practice. It is
clear that the UGC had the power to and did impose a general, blanket prohibition on
all Universities from offering any form of online or hybrid courses till the notification of
the Online Regulations on 04.07.2018. On innumerable occasions, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden. The DEC Guidelines, having always had
statutory force, only permitted offline courses. Online and hybrid courses were only
allowed in 2018. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to argue that NUJS could have
run online and hybrid courses in collaboration with iPleaders outside the permissible
purview of the said DEC Guidelines. In view of the foregoing, it appears that this
contention by iPleaders is a confused afterthought.
I further clarify that state ‘open’ universities and statutory universities are not mutually
exclusive categories, as claimed by iPleaders (illustratively, Netaji Subhas Open
University is a statutory university).
As an aside, at multiple instances, iPleaders has relied on an ingeniously invented
false dichotomy between the UGC DEB approvals required by statutory Central/ State
Universities and other (non-statutory) Universities, thereby arguing that NUJS’ power
to commence Diploma/ Certificate courses was not subject to UGC DEB’s jurisdiction.
This is completely incorrect, as shown conclusively by the above quoted paragraphs,
particularly 61 and 62, from Kartar Singh.
In its Rejoinder, iPleaders has further invented another false dichotomy and states,
“UGC did not concern itself with recognizing courses that were of 1 year or less
duration”. As the concern that has ad nauseum complained about the lack of
substantiation in my arguments, I hope iPleaders will be able to furnish a shred of
evidence to support this imaginary line in the sand. On my part, I rely on Table 1.1 of
the DEC Guidelines (reproduced above), whereby the recommended length of a 12-18
credit Certificate course is prescribed as 6 (six) months.

 Reliance on a Purported RTI Response to Interpret the Unequivocal Provisions
of the Law
iPleaders also seeks to selectively quote a purported Right to Information (RTI)
response by the UGC DEB to interpret the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law as
optional. I do not seek to justify the seemingly sloppy response by the UGC DEB to the
purported RTI cited by iPleaders. However, it is settled law that RTI is a tool to access
information and pre-existing documents and cannot be used to seek legal assistance,
which requires the services of a legal counsel/ consultant. The first query of this
purported RTI is in the nature of a purely legal query addressed to the UGC DEB and
therefore, an interpretation thereof is not credible at all. Therefore, the distinction
between recognition for Central Government’s recruitment purposes and the illegality
of such unapproved (offline and prohibited online and hybrid) courses, artificially
sought to be drawn by iPleaders, is entirely misconceived and has no basis
whatsoever under the relevant law. The said artificial distinction, which is based on a
convenient interpretation of the corresponding answer to the said first query, is infected
by conceited contextomy. In any case, an RTI response is neither justiciable nor a
statutory instrument. A public authority under the RTI Act, 2005 is neither a court of law
nor a court of record. An RTI response ought to not be interpreted like a statute,
especially in teeth of the express mandate of statutory law as shown above.
Irrelevant Name-dropping
As an aside, the said piece indulges in serial name-dropping at many places to justify
the obvious illegalities. I do not feel the need to respond to such legally irrelevant
banter. I am not concerned with the UGC DEB allegedly having a weak history of
enforcements or with why certain big names are yet to receive notices from the UGC
DEB. However, I have provided a factual clarification on this point as well at
ENCLOSURE-1.
I really hope that iPleaders' proposed appeal to the EC will force NUJS to be more
transparent in its dealings with the distance education mess. I have always wanted this
matter (along with other statutory violations/ illegalities) to be discussed threadbare
and meaningful action taken.

 ENCLOSURE-1
CERTAIN FACTUAL CLARIFICATIONS: A LIE HAS MANY VARIATIONS, BUT THE TRUTH NONE!
A.

School of Distance and Mass Education’s responsiveness

“Anybody interested to know the truth could have asked the School of Distance and
Mass Education for the information and would have promptly received it as I did.”


This statement is contrary to the claims of dozens of iPleaders’ students regarding the
non-responsiveness of the School of Distance and Mass Education’s (SDME) Director,
Prof. Anirban Mazumdar in W.P. No. 25595 (W) of 2018, which was dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta vide Judgement dated 01.03.2019.



As mentioned earlier, the 62nd EC held on 29.09.2018 had resolved, “all the online
courses shall be stopped forthwith”. As a result, Registrar (Acting) Ms. Shikha Sen wrote
to the SDME’s Director, Prof. Mazumdar on 01.10.2018 directing him to take necessary
action for giving effect to the aforesaid 62nd EC decision and to deal with all further
communications received in this regard.



The 63rd EC’s Agenda Notes (at Agenda No. 6) included the said letter from Ms. Sen to
Prof. Mazumdar. Prof. Mazumdar audaciously refused in his letter dated 03.10.2018 to
respond to the clueless distance education students’ queries regarding the suspension
of distance and online education courses by simply citing unnamed “personal reasons”?!



Thereafter, the 63rd EC is known to have severely (albeit, verbally) reprimanded Prof.
Mazumdar for his non-responsiveness. At the 63rd EC, his request to be relieved from
the duty of communicating with the students of the terminated iPleaders’ courses was
specifically rejected by the EC. At the same time, the EC directed the involved iPleaders’
course coordinators, Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik and Ms. Sujata Roy to assist Prof.
Mazumdar in taking necessary steps for effecting smooth termination of the online
courses.



Shocked by this state of affairs, I had filed an RTI application with the NUJS Public
Information Officer (PIO), Mr. Pritwish Saha on 25.01.2019. When the PIO was pursued
by me for a proper response, I found it disturbing that he would repeatedly (albeit,
verbally) respond saying that the answers were, in fact, framed in consultation with the
Registrar (Acting), Ms. Shikha Sen and SDME’s Director, Prof. Mazumdar. As

 ENCLOSURE-1
expected of the veteran RTI-dodger, Mr. Saha, he gave a highly evasive response.
Aggrieved, I was constrained to prefer an RTI appeal dated 22.03.2019 before Ms. Sen.


Reportedly, SDME’s Director, Prof. Mazumdar was yet again sharply reprimanded
(albeit, verbally) by the 65th EC. However, it appears that in line with the record of poor
minuting of University governing bodies’ meetings, there is no mention of any particulars
against the relevant Agenda No. 9.
B.

Deemed relaxation of the mandatory approval requirement on account of
UGC DEB’s alleged failure to perform its statutory function to recognise new
universities

“In other words, in spite of an instrument that validly existed, UGC did not perform its
statutory function to recognize new universities for distance education, until new
regulations were issued, four years after 2013.”


This statement is factually incorrect. Multiple approval lists, illustratively, dated
26.05.2015;

16.02.2016;

26.08.2016;

26.10.2017;

09.08.2018;

03.10.2018

and

21.02.2019 make evident that such approvals were, in fact, granted to new institutions,
thereby belying iPleaders’ suggestion that the UGC DEB failed in discharging its
statutory function on this count. The differences in the aforesaid lists establish the
addition/ removal of certain universities from the list of approved distance education
institutions over these distinct periods. In its Rejoinder, iPleaders “unwittingly represents”
that between 2013 and 2017, the UGC DEB only ‘renewed’ the recognitions already
granted by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC and did not issue recognition to any new
Universities. This is false as is clearly borne out by the differences in the aforesaid lists
dated 26.05.2015 (127 entries), 16.02.2016 (106 entries) and 26.08.2016 (145 entries).
Notably, entry no. 106 in the list dated 16.02.2016 is National Law School of India
University.


In any case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Annamalai clarifies that UGC’s
failure to take action against non-compliant universities cannot be seen as an automatic
approval for the offending distance education courses. Further, Annamalai clarifies that
relaxation cannot be granted by the UGC DEB ex post facto or by necessary implication.
Therefore, there is no question of iPleaders’ NUJS online courses having been
automatically deemed approved on account of UGC DEB’s alleged inaction in granting
new approvals, following iPleaders’ unmaintainable (all online courses were prohibited)
purported application through NUJS.

 ENCLOSURE-2
QUESTIONS FOR IPLEADERS
Certain things pique me. iPleaders is not obligated to respond but I will question them
anyway:


Why is iPleaders so concerned by the suggestion that NUJS should hold the guilty
insiders viz. former Vice Chancellor, Prof. P. Ishwara Bhat; SDME Director, Prof.
Anirban Mazumdar; former Registrars (Acting) Dr. R. Parameshwaran and Dr.
Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan; Assistant Professor, Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik; and Prof.
Sandeepa Bhat (after due investigations) financially liable for the refunds and litigation
costs that NUJS has already suffered and will likely suffer on account of their
misconduct? Surely such individuals can defend themselves. Have these individuals
already sought assistance from iPleaders or is the latter obligated, morally or otherwise,
to volunteer assistance?



Since iPleaders feels wronged, why did they not approach the EC earlier, especially
when NUJS’ administration was being unresponsive (as against SDME which iPleaders
wrongly believes to be responsive)? It has been nearly a year since the courses were
"suddenly" stopped. That said, I am happy that iPleaders is now appealing to the EC.
Hopefully, this will put some pace and rigour into the painfully slow-paced EC instituted
inquiries.



iPleaders has stated that it let the students know that their courses are not recognised
by the UGC DEB, but their students took the courses anyway. How does that affect the
fact that NUJS violated the mandatory regulations notified by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC
and later the UGC DEB for distance education courses? These regulations clearly stated
that requisite approvals will need to be secured mandatorily, while UGC notices
blanketly prohibited online and hybrid courses till 04.07.2018. Students and iPleaders
were, legally speaking, in no position to waive the mandatory requirements of law
applicable to NUJS for obtaining such requisite approvals and to the concerned students
for receiving such certification. In any case, did iPleaders always issue such disclaimers
when they first started under Prof. M.P. Singh's tenure? Having seen previous
application forms as a part of iPleaders’ students’ pleadings in W.P. No. 25595 (W) of
2018, I contest this entirely untrue claim. Did the disclaimer also explain the
consequences of signing up for a course that is not recognised by the IGNOU DEC/ the
UGC DEB?

 ENCLOSURE-2


What about the fact that iPleaders consulted tax experts who stated that courses that did
not have the requisite IGNOU DEC/ UGC DEB approval(s) are liable to attract Service
Tax and now the Goods and Services Tax? What's the current status of that wrinkle?
Unexpectedly, iPleaders responded to the aforesaid questions in their Rejoinder.
Expectedly, those answers were as evasive as the rest of their case and consistent with
NUJS’ PIO and SDME Director’s evasiveness on the issue. Since iPleaders is so sure
that “a lot of lawyer will be reading it”, I too leave it to such lawyers to be the judges of
iPleaders’ evasiveness and complicity!