Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 17-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Ayesha Jain (Petitioner) vs. Amity University, Noida & others (Respondents) – Writ Petition (Civil) No.531/2025.
  • Numerous intervenor applications were listed (IA Nos. 68402/2026 to 27039/2026) covering waivers, condonations, exemptions, interventions, and permissions.
  • The bench comprised Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria.
  • Counsel for petitioner and a long roster of counsel for respondents, including representatives of multiple State Governments, Union Territories, and statutory bodies (e.g., Ministry of Education, National Medical Commission, Bar Council of India, etc.), appeared.

Court’s Observations & Directions

1. Profit‑Making Prohibition: No private university may operate as a profit‑making entity; finances must be responsibly managed, and diversion of funds to governing board members is prohibited.

2. Audit & Financial Disclosure: All universities under State jurisdiction must submit audited reports for the last five years detailing funds generated, utilization, payments to non‑functional individuals, and benefits received from Central/State governments (land, relaxations, privileges).

3. Admission Procedure Disclosure: Universities must disclose the exact admission procedure for each course, including persons responsible for admissions, paper setting, examinations, evaluation, fund handling, and management’s role.

4. Fee Structure Disclosure: Detailed breakdown of fees collected at admission and throughout the course, including any development funds or special event collections, must be provided.

5. Surplus Fund Management: Universities must detail how surplus funds are dealt with, including any investments made.

6. Staff Recruitment & Salary Disclosure: Complete details of recruitment, salaries, emoluments, payment mechanisms, service conditions, class allotment authority, actual classes taken, and remedial arrangements (from Jan 2025 onward) must be submitted.

7. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Universities must furnish the composition of grievance committees, nature of grievances handled, number of complaints received, outcomes, and time‑frames for the past three years.

8. Hospital Affiliations: Details of hospitals attached to medical colleges, and the nature of those relationships, must be disclosed.

9. Affiliating/Recognising Body Inspections: Bodies such as the National Medical Commission, Dental Council of India, Indian Nursing Council, Bar Council of India, etc., must submit inspection reports for the last five years, listing faculty and supporting staff, and affirm the affidavits personally.

10. Affidavit Filing: Union of India/concerned State/UT governments must file the above affidavits within six weeks, with a copy to Dr. R.M. Sharma.

11. Fine for Non‑Appearance: Any respondent not represented today is fined Rs 5,00,000, payable within two weeks, and must show cause for non‑representation.

12. Obligation of Governments: States must procure all required information from universities/colleges and cannot rely solely on information forwarded by the institutions; coercive measures may be employed.

13. Online Appearance Rejection: Counsel appearing online without disclosing the party they represent will have their appearance rejected and will be fined Rs 5,00,000, with an opportunity to make a physical appearance.

14. Deficiencies in Inspections: Affiliated bodies must also disclose any deficiencies noted in their inspections and whether they have been remedied, with affidavits affirmed by their heads.

15‑18. Transfer of Related School‑Safety Case: An interlocutory application by Dr. R.M. Sharma (Chair of a Committee inspecting Delhi schools) in W.P.(C) 10542/2023 is transferred to this Court; all records to be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

19‑22. Responses from NCT of Delhi: The NCT of Delhi must file its response within four weeks on actions taken by the Chief Secretary, Police Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner, and Cantonment Board; copies of Dr. Sharma’s reports to be served on Delhi counsel and the Central Agency by 21‑22 Sept 2026.

23‑27. Inspection Powers: Dr. R.M. Sharma and two co‑opted members are authorized to inspect schools at their convenience; schools must not obstruct inspection, and any non‑cooperation must be reported to the Chief Secretary and Police Commissioner.

28‑29. AICTE Impleaded: The All India Council for Technical Education is impleaded as a respondent; it must file affidavits through its head within the stipulated timeline.

30‑31. Consolidated Chart: Regulatory bodies of universities must receive a consolidated chart of affidavits; the chart to be collected from Mr. Hemant Sharma within one week.

32‑33. Interim Report by Mr. Ashok Prasad: An interim report has been submitted; the final report is expected soon, and all requests for documents or witnesses by Mr. Prasad’s team must be complied with.

34‑36. Petitioner’s Grievances: (a) Defamatory social‑media posts must be removed; any AI‑generated content relating to the incident must be withdrawn. (b) Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) is impleaded; its Secretary must ensure compliance.

37‑38. MEITY Acceptance: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG, accepts notice on behalf of MEITY; Union of India must ensure compliance.

39‑40. CCTV Footage: Amity University has already provided CCTV footage to Mr. Ashok Prasad; petitioner may view it and give inputs; all reports and interim documents are to remain sealed unless the Court permits opening.

41‑42. Honorarium Payments: Rs 10,00,000 each to be paid to Dr. R.M. Sharma (by Department of Education, Government of India) and to Mr. Ashok Prasad (by Amity University) within one week.

43. Future Hearing: All members of the School Monitoring Committee must appear at the next hearing.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court issued comprehensive compliance directives to Amity University, all private universities, and multiple governmental and regulatory bodies, imposing fines for non‑appearance, ordering detailed disclosures, authorising school inspections, and mandating honorarium payments, thereby ensuring transparency and non‑profit operation of private higher‑education institutions.

Topics: Higher Education Governance, Court Enforcement