India’s private universities under SC scanner: Centre, states and UGC asked to reveal how they are run

The Supreme Court has unexpectedly widened a student’s grievance into a nationwide scrutiny of how private, non-government and deemed-to-be universities across India are founded, financed and governed. According to a Live Law report, the order directs the Centre, every state and Union Territory, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file personally affirmed affidavits detailing the origins, governance structures, benefits received, compliance processes and functioning of all such universities in the country.

This is not routine paperwork. It is a rare moment when the country’s highest court is asking governments questions that millions of students and parents have silently wondered for years: Who runs these universities? How did they secure their land and permissions? Who checks if they follow their own rules? And what exactly happens to the money that students pay?

The case that triggered the national review

The matter began when a student — Ayesha Jain, previously known as Khushi Jain — approached the Supreme Court alleging harassment and academic disruption after she changed her name. Her petition stated that Amity University, Noida, did not update her name in official records and denied her attendance, causing loss of an academic year, reports Live Law.

The Court had earlier directed the President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (the trust behind Amity) and the Vice-Chancellor of Amity University to appear personally and submit affidavits. They complied. But instead of concluding the issue, the Bench paused and reassessed the larger implications.

The fact that the student’s transition — from a traditionally Hindu name (Khushi) to a Muslim one (Ayesha) — had resulted in administrative obstacles was part of the case narrative before the Court. The Bench did not frame this as a religious issue, but the sequence of events formed the factual backdrop as the matter escalated.

After reviewing the submissions, the Court concluded that this case raised broader concerns about how such institutions operate, prompting it to expand the inquiry to every private, non-government and deemed university in India.

What the Supreme Court wants: A full paper trail of how these universities came to life

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre, all States and UTs to produce what is, in effect, a foundational dossier on every private, non-government and deemed university in India. According to the Live Law report, the Apex Court wants to know how each institution was born: The precise provision of law under which it was established, the circumstances that led to its approval, and the specific benefits and concessions it received from the state.

This includes the big-ticket items starting from land allotments and preferential treatment to any concession quietly granted over the years along with the conditions that were attached to those benefits. The Supreme Court also wants full disclosure of who actually runs these universities: Founding societies or trusts, their aims and objectives, the members of their top decision-making bodies, and the process by which these individuals were appointed.

At its core, the Bench is asking for something that should have been publicly available all along: A transparent origin story.

UGC under microscope: No room for ambiguity

The Court’s directions to the UGC are even more pointed. It wants the Commission to spell out, without ambiguity, what its rules actually require of these universities and, just as importantly, how it enforces those rules in practice.

This isn’t a request for a broad policy overview. The Court wants the UGC to identify the real, operational mechanisms it uses to keep institutions in compliance — the checks, the audits, the monitoring systems, and the consequences for institutions that slip through the cracks.

And in a significant escalation of accountability, the Court has ordered that the UGC Chairman must personally affirm the affidavit. There can be no delegation, no signatures from junior officials. The head of the regulator must stand by every word submitted to the Court.

Everyday functions under review

The Supreme Court has also sought granular details on three everyday processes that shape student and staff experience but are rarely transparent: Admissions, faculty recruitment, and governance checks.

It wants governments and the UGC to describe how universities admit students, the criteria and processes through which they hire academic staff, and, crucially, what oversight mechanisms exist to ensure that these actions follow established norms.

These may appear to be administrative basics, but they touch upon the areas where students most often report inconsistency or opacity.

The ‘no-profit’, ‘no-loss’ claim: A long-accepted narrative put to test

Among all the questions raised, the most consequential may be the Apex Court’s deep dive into the widely advertised ‘no-profit’, ‘no-loss’ model. This is a phrase that has floated unchallenged in university brochures for decades.

The Supreme Court has asked governments to verify whether these institutions truly operate on such a basis, and if so, how it is enforced. It wants concrete disclosure on whether money has been diverted to founders, family members, unrelated assets, or personal perks. This includes examining salaries, benefits, and expenditures that may fall outside the academic ecosystem.

The tone of the order carries a quiet scepticism. If an institution is genuinely non-profit, its financial flows should leave a clear, unambiguous trail. If the trail bends or disappears, the claim itself becomes questionable.

Grievance redressal: The missing backbone of student and faculty protection

The Apex Court is also pressing for details on grievance redressal mechanisms — for both students and staff. Institutions must show whether they have functional, accessible systems, whether they operate independently, and whether complaints are resolved in a timely manner.

This focus stems directly from the petitioner’s experience. Ayesha Jain alleged that after her name change—from Khushi Jain to Ayesha Jain—her university did not update records and denied her attendance, causing severe academic consequences. Her struggle is emblematic of what many students across institutions face: Slow-moving or non-existent grievance systems.

By demanding disclosures here, the Court is signalling that grievance redressal is not a formality; it is an essential part of what makes a university accountable.

Personal liability for every word submitted

To ensure that the information provided is complete and truthful, the Supreme Court has issued a rare directive. The Cabinet Secretary, all State and UT Chief Secretaries, and the UGC Chairman must personally affirm their affidavits. No subordinate officer may sign on their behalf. The Apex Court has warned that any misstatement, suppression or misrepresentation will invite a strict view.

Litmus test for India’s higher education

If the Supreme Court’s order does what the policy ecosystem has failed to do for two decades, Indian higher education may finally be forced to confront its most inconvenient truth: That public responsibility does not evaporate simply because an institution is privately run. Private, non-government and deemed universities have long operated in the twilight zone between regulation and autonomy shielded by rhetoric, empowered by opacity, and buoyed by the unquestioned demand for degrees. The Apex Court’s insistence on personally affirmed affidavits from the country’s senior-most administrators has quietly redrawn the power lines.

For the first time, governments and the UGC must explain not only what exists on paper, but what actually happens in practice. Whether this becomes the beginning of long-overdue structural hygiene or just another chapter in India’s thick archive of half-finished reforms will depend on what the affidavits reveal and how firmly the Court chooses to act on them.


Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!