Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 21‑07‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Ayesha Jain (Petitioner) vs. Amity University, Noida & Ors. (Respondents) – Writ Petition (Civil) No.531/2025.
  • Numerous Interlocutory Applications (IA No.68402/2026 to IA No.26779/2026) were listed, covering waivers, condonations, exemptions, interventions, and permissions to file additional documents.
  • The Court heard senior counsel for both parties and noted the presence of Dr. R.M. Sharma, appointed under Part‑A of the Court’s order dated 26‑02‑2026, and Mr. Ashok Prasad, appointed under Part‑B of the same order, who is unwell and unable to submit a report.
  • Dr. R.M. Sharma prepared a “Note” outlining issues for the Court’s consideration; the Court accepted the suggestion and directed parties to obtain a soft copy of this Note from his office by 24‑07‑2026.
  • Parties must submit detailed responses to the issues raised in the Note within three weeks of receipt (i.e., by 14‑08‑2026). Failure to do so will attract “heavy cost”.
  • The Court warned that inadequate or incomplete responses will be deemed a deliberate attempt to suppress facts, leading to further consequences for the defaulting parties.
  • Financial Direction: Respondent No.1 is ordered to deposit Rs 10,00,000 (Ten Lakhs) in the Court Registry by 24‑07‑2026. From this amount, Rs 5,00,000 each will be released to Dr. R.M. Sharma and Mr. Ashok Prasad by 25‑07‑2026.
  • The Court observed that many States/UTs and other respondents have not obtained copies of Dr. Sharma’s objections nor filed responses, and therefore are held in contempt. Chief Secretaries/Heads of these jurisdictions must appear personally on the next listing date and explain the default; otherwise, contempt notices will be issued within ten days.
  • Respondents numbered 42 to 54, impleaded on 19‑05‑2026, have not filed affidavits. They must also obtain the soft copy of the Note by 24‑07‑2026 and respond within three weeks.
  • Respondent No.49 – Pharmacy Council of India – has not entered appearance; the Union of India is directed to ensure compliance.
  • The Court stipulated that any further default on the directions will lead to issuance of positive directions and individual action against responsible persons.
  • Next Listing: 17‑09‑2026 at 2:00 PM.
  • The Court emphasized that responses to Dr. Sharma’s Note must be specific and exhaustive, leaving no scope for additional time extensions.
  • Clarification was sought on whether States/UTs had previously answered issues related to benefits granted to universities in their jurisdictions; counsel must obtain the Note and update their replies if needed.
  • All affidavits, responses, and filings submitted by 14‑08‑2026 will be considered in the next report by Dr. R.M. Sharma.

Final Outcome

  • Mandatory deposit of Rs 10 lakh by Respondent No.1, with subsequent disbursement of Rs 5 lakh each to Dr. Sharma and Mr. Prasad.
  • Strict deadlines imposed for obtaining and responding to the Court‑appointed Note, with heavy cost and contempt consequences for non‑compliance.
  • Contempt proceedings initiated against non‑responsive States/UTs and councils; chief secretaries must appear or face notices.
  • Next hearing scheduled for 17 Sept 2026, after which the Court will assess all submissions filed by 14 Aug 2026.

Topics: Court Orders, Higher Education, Contempt Proceedings