Ayesha Jain Vs Amity University (Supreme Court of India)
Private Universities Cannot Become Profit-Making Institutions: Supreme Court Orders Nationwide Financial and Admission Audit
Supreme Court Seeks Complete Financial and Administrative Disclosure
The Supreme Court has issued wide-ranging directions requiring private universities across India to disclose their financial affairs, admission procedures, fee collections, utilisation of surplus funds, staff recruitment practices, grievance-redressal mechanisms and benefits received from the Central and State Governments.
The Court categorically declared that no private university can be permitted to operate as a profit-making institution. Although an educational institution may maintain a reasonable financial cushion for its smooth functioning and for adequately compensating teaching and non-teaching employees, its funds cannot be diverted for unrelated purposes.
The Court specifically stated that diversion of university funds through payments of salaries or provision of facilities to members of the governing board or other governing bodies would not be permitted unless such payments were connected with the functioning of the institution.
Five Years’ Audited Financial Records Called For
The Supreme Court directed every State to ensure that private universities falling within its jurisdiction submit their audited financial records for the preceding five years.
The disclosure must contain complete particulars of the funds generated by each university, the manner in which those funds were utilised and payments made to persons who were not directly involved in the functioning of the university as an educational institution.
Universities must also disclose all benefits received from the Central or State Governments, including allotment of land, relaxation under applicable laws, concessions and any special privilege granted to them.
The Court emphasised that the information must be complete in every respect and should permit scrutiny of whether the university’s resources were used for genuine educational purposes or diverted for private benefit.
Admission Process and Fee Collections Under Scrutiny
The universities must disclose the exact procedure adopted for admitting students to every course offered by them.
The disclosure must identify the persons responsible for admissions, setting examination papers, conducting examinations, evaluating answer sheets, handling funds and supervising management involvement in these activities.
The Court also directed the disclosure of the entire fee structure. This includes fees collected at the time of admission, fees charged during the course and any additional collection under different descriptions, such as development funds, special-event charges or similar levies.
The manner in which surplus funds are dealt with must also be disclosed. Universities must provide details of investments made from such surplus and explain the purpose and destination of the accumulated funds.
Recruitment, Salaries and Teaching Workload
The Supreme Court sought detailed information regarding the recruitment of teaching and non-teaching employees, the salaries and emoluments payable to them and the manner in which such amounts are paid.
The universities must clarify whether service conditions governing teaching and non-teaching staff have been formally notified.
They must also identify the competent authority responsible for assigning classes to teaching staff. Details of the classes allotted to each teacher, the number of classes actually conducted and the alternative arrangements made when a teacher failed to conduct an assigned class must be furnished from January 2025 onwards.
This direction seeks to ensure that institutions do not merely show faculty members on paper for regulatory compliance while denying students actual access to the required teaching personnel.
Grievance Committees and Attached Hospitals
Universities must disclose the grievance-redressal mechanism operating within their institutions, including the composition of the grievance committees and the nature of complaints that those committees are empowered to examine.
Details of complaints received during the preceding three years, their outcomes and the time taken for disposal must be furnished.
In the case of colleges attached to hospitals, the institutions must provide details of the hospitals and explain the precise relationship between the college and the hospital.
Regulators Must Disclose Inspection Records
Recognising and affiliating bodies have also been brought within the disclosure framework.
Bodies including the National Medical Commission, Dental Council of India, Indian Nursing Council, Bar Council of India, Pharmacy Council of India, Veterinary Council of India and the commissions governing allied health professions, Indian systems of medicine and homeopathy must furnish details of inspections conducted during the preceding five years.
They must disclose the entire faculty and supporting staff on whose strength recognition or affiliation was granted. In the case of medical institutions, the names of doctors occupying every sanctioned post must also be furnished.
The regulators must additionally identify deficiencies found during their last inspection and state whether the concerned institutions rectified those deficiencies.
The affidavits must be personally affirmed by the Chairperson, President, Chief Executive Officer or chief controlling officer of the concerned regulatory body.
Personal Affidavits of Chief Secretaries
The Union Government, States and Union Territories were directed to collect the required information from the universities and colleges and file affidavits within six weeks.
The Court clarified that a State cannot defend an incomplete affidavit by claiming that the university or college failed to supply information. The States possess adequate authority, including coercive powers, to obtain the required records.
The affidavits must be personally affirmed by the respective Chief Secretaries.
Respondents who remained unrepresented were subjected to costs of ₹5 lakh each, payable within two weeks. Their highest authorities were also required to explain the absence of representation.
School Safety Proceedings Transferred to Supreme Court
The Court also transferred a pending Delhi High Court proceeding concerning the safety of children in schools to itself.
Dr. R.M. Sharma and his team were authorised to inspect schools, call for records and examine relevant material as officers of the Court. School authorities, civil authorities and the police were directed to cooperate fully.
No school authority can prevent the committee from entering or inspecting the premises. Any obstruction must be reported to the Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Police, who must ensure that the inspection proceeds without hindrance.
Social Media Content Ordered to Be Removed
The petitioner complained about derogatory and defamatory social-media posts relating to the incident under examination.
Finding substance in the grievance, the Supreme Court directed that no such content, including AI-generated content, should be uploaded. Existing content relating to the incident was directed to be withdrawn.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was impleaded and directed to ensure compliance. The petitioner was also permitted to view the relevant CCTV footage furnished by Amity University to the inquiry team and provide her inputs.
The matter was directed to be listed on November 19, 2026.
Author’s Comments
The order is not a final judgment on the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and Amity University. It is an interim regulatory order aimed at examining systemic issues in private higher education and school safety.
Its most significant declaration is that private universities may generate a reasonable surplus but cannot operate for private profit or divert educational funds for the benefit of governing-board members.
The insistence on personally affirmed affidavits from Chief Secretaries and heads of regulatory bodies is intended to prevent routine, incomplete or evasive compliance.
The order also signals that regulatory recognition cannot rest on faculty lists and infrastructure existing merely on paper. Admission transparency, actual classroom teaching, utilisation of fees, institutional grievance mechanisms and genuine faculty availability have all been brought within judicial scrutiny.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SUPREME COURT
Heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the parties.
2. Admission is one of the aspects which concerns the Court most. Basically, it is the public at large, for whom the system operates, especially in a matter where education is imparted. Thus, we make it clear that no private university shall be allowed to be run as a profit-making institution. It has to serve a purpose with some sort of a cushion so that its finances/resources are responsibly managed to ensure smooth functioning of the institution and that the teaching and non-teaching employees are compensated suitably. Beyond that, no sort of any diversion under any head, like payment of salaries to the Governing Board of Directors or providing facilities to such Members of the Board/Governing bodies of such institutions shall be permitted. The States shall ensure that all Universities falling under their jurisdiction submit audited reports for the last five years with regard to the funds generated, their utilization, as also payments made to individuals who may not be directly involved in/related to the functioning of the university as an educational institution. The details shall be complete in all regards. Such universities shall also be required to furnish details of what benefits it has taken from the Central and State Government(s) with regard to allotment of land and other relaxations in the existing laws or any special/other privilege conferred on them.
3. The said details shall also disclose the exact procedure adopted for admitting students in each and every course which may be offered by that university. It shall also disclose the persons who are in-charge of admissions, setting of papers, conduct of examinations, evaluation of the answer sheets, handling of funds, as also the role of the management in these matters.
4. Details of the fee collected, both at the time of admission, as also during the tenure of the course and whether there are any collections by whatever name during such course, like development fund, funds for holding any special event, etc.
5. The manner in which surplus funds are dealt with, including investments made out of such funds, should be specifically dealt with in detail.
6. The mode of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff, the salaries and other emoluments attached thereto and the way in which the same are paid to such persons would also be fully disclosed in detail. Whether service conditions are specifically notified by the concerned university relating to the teaching and non-teaching staff and if so, details thereof shall also be disclosed. The details of who is the competent authority to allot classes to the teaching staff and details of all the teaching staff and how many classes were allotted to them and actually how many classes were taken by them and if not taken, what alternative arrangements have been made so that the students did not suffer due to non-availability of any teacher. Details starting from January, 2025, onwards be submitted with regard to this direction relating to allotment of classes to the teaching staff.
7. Mechanism in place relating to the redressal of grievances, giving details of its composition and the nature of grievances which can be gone into by such Committee(s), as also the exact number and details of complaints received and the result thereof, including the time frames, for the last three years, be clearly specified in such affidavits.
8. Further details shall also be furnished by them with regard to the hospitals to which such colleges are attached. The relationship of the college with the hospital.
9. The affiliating/recognizing body shall furnish details of the inspections held in such universities/colleges relating to such recognition/affiliation giving details of the entire faculty, as also the supporting staff based on which such recognition/affiliation is granted. The names of the doctors in each and every post shall be disclosed by the concerned recognizing/affiliating body, viz., the National Medical Commission, Dental Council of India, National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, Indian Nursing Council, Bar Council of India, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, National Commission for Homeopathy, Veterinary Council of India and Pharmacy Council of India, for the last five years. Affidavit in this regard be filed, personally affirmed by the respective Chairman/President of such body.
10. The said affidavit shall be filed by the Union of India/concerned State/Union Territory Governments after getting the details from the universities and colleges concerned within six weeks from today, with advance copy to Dr. R.M. Sharma.
11. Any of the respondent(s) who are not represented today before this Court are imposed a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) each, to be deposited within two weeks’ from today in the Registry of this Court. Further, the highest authority, through whom the said respondent is represented, shall also be required to show cause as to why in the present proceedings, there was no representation on its behalf before the Court when the matter was taken up for hearing today.
12. The Union of India/concerned State/Union Territory Governments are cautioned not to withhold any information which they may also have in their possession relating to the universities/colleges on any aspect, including those indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. It shall be the duty of the State to ensure that all the information is procured in time from the universities/colleges concerned, and no State will have a defence that they could furnish before this Court only the information which was forwarded to them by such university/college, as it is well within their powers, including taking of coercive measures, to ensure that whatever information the Court has directed under this order is brought on record in their affidavits to be filed by the Union of India/concerned State/Union Territory Governments , personally affirmed by their respective Chief Secretaries.
13. All the learned Counsel for the respondents who have given their appearance online but without disclosing for whom they are appearing, their appearances shall stand rejected and the concerned respondent shall also be liable to pay the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as indicated. However, by way of indulgence, one opportunity to file physical appearance is given to them, if they have not disclosed in their online appearance the name and detail of the party for which they are appearing.
14. The affiliating/recognizing bodies, viz., The National Medical Council, National Dental Commission, National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, National Nursing Council, Bar Council of India, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, National Commission for Homeopathy, Veterinary Council of India and Pharmacy Council of India shall also, in addition, file details with regard to what deficiencies were pointed out in their inspection last done and whether the same have been removed by the concerned institution(s). The said institutions/bodies shall also file their responses on affidavits to be affirmed by the Chairman/President/Chief Executive Officer/Chief Controlling Officer of the said institution/body.
15. An Interlocutory Application has been filed by Dr. R.M. Sharma, with regard to the safety of children in the schools of Delhi with regard to which he has been nominated as the Chairperson of a Committee, which was to inspect the said schools and file a report in W.P.(C) 10542/2023 which was on the Delhi High Court’s own motion. It was submitted that many reports have been submitted and grave violations of norms, especially relating to the safety of children in the schools were brought to the notice of the Court. Thus, prayer is made that as the present matter also relates to the education system and in the said case no further directions have been issued and the last effective order was passed on 03.11.2023, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
16. Having considered the matter, we deem it appropriate to transfer the said case to this Court, to be tagged along with the present case. Let the same be done.
17. Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. The entire records of W.P.(C) 10542/2023, pending before the Delhi High Court, be transmitted to this Court.
18. Dr. R.M. Sharma, Chairman of the said Committee informs us that while inspecting, if any serious irregularity is found, the information of the same is also communicated to the Chief Secretary and thereafter a reports are prepared, which he has already submitted in sealed covers to the High Court.
19. Learned counsel for the NCT of Delhi shall file its response within four weeks from today with regard to what action the Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Police/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Cantonment Board of Delhi have taken in the said matter.
20. To facilitate the matter, let a copy of the reports which Dr. R.M. Sharma has submitted to the High Court, be served on learned counsel for the State of NCT of Delhi in a sealed cover. He shall take instructions and file personal affidavits of the Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Police, Delhi/the head of the concerned Department or Organization under whose jurisdiction the said schools are located within four weeks from today.
21. A copy shall also be served on the Central Agency to be forwarded to the appropriate learned counsel, who would be representing the Police Commissioner of NCT of Delhi. Let the same be done by Monday i.e., 21.09.2026
22. Two sets of such reports shall be handed over by Mr. Hemant Sharma, Member of Dr. R.M. Sharma’s team to the Court Master of this Court from whom the counsel for the State of NCT, Delhi, as also for the Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall collect the same, by Tuesday i.e., 22.09.2026.
23. Dr. Sharma and his team are authorized to inspect the Schools as per their convenience. All the Authorities, both of the schools concerned, of the State Government, the local Police shall fully cooperate with Dr. R.M. Sharma. He shall have the right to call for and inspect any document/material he would require for such inspection as an officer of this Court. The said shall be ensured by the Authorities concerned, both the civil side as well as the Police side.
24. Dr. R.M. Sharma is permitted to include two other Members for the purposes of carrying out the inspection of the Schools. We do not want anybody who is not interested to be even remotely connected with this exercise. The Court will take a call with regard to other Members on the next date depending on their cooperation and interest shown by them in the exercise.
25. The inspection of the Schools will continue with the two members as may be co-opted by Dr. R. M. Sharma. On the next day, we expect that more schools would be inspected. However, we make a request that, for the present, Schools may be selected on the basis of reports/inputs with regard to there being grave irregularities/deficiencies in such Schools.
26. Dr. R.M. Sharma has pointed out to us that a few schools are not permitting him to enter the premises for inspection. We make it clear that any Authority of any School shall not prevent Dr. R.M. Sharma from entering and inspecting the Schools and shall fully cooperate with Dr. R.M. Sharma and the Members. Upon failure to do so, Dr. R. M. Sharma would inform the Chief Secretary, Government of Delhi as also the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and they shall ensure that the work of such inspection is carried out without any hindrance from any corner.
27. At this juncture, we have been informed that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has also not been made a party in this case.
28. Accordingly, Commissioner of Police, Delhi and AICTE is also impleaded as respondents. Notice be issued to them forthwith.
29. The newly added respondents shall also file their affidavits through the head of those institutions in terms of all the orders of this Court.
30. The regulatory bodies of the Universities, be also provided with a copy of the consolidated chart and consolidated examination of the affidavits filed by them, as submitted by Dr. R.M. Sharma and Mr. Hemant Sharma, Member. The same be collected from Mr. Hemant Sharma, by the concerned counsels making a request to him, within one week.
31. With regard to the issue for which Mr. Ashok Prasad was nominated and has constituted a team of two more Officers, an interim report has been submitted.
32. However, he submits that final report would be submitted soon. At this juncture, we make it clear that whatever request comes from Mr. Ashok Prasad and his team, for any document or a witness to come and get his/her statement recorded, the same shall be promptly complied with by the concerned Authority/person to whom such request is made. This direction is across the board to all who may be concerned or whom the team led by Mr. Ashok Prasad considers relevant, either with regard to providing information/documents or with regard to recording their statement. No person/Authority shall have the defense that just because they are not a party to the present proceeding, they shall not cooperate and if there is any attempt to do so, it will be construed as an act of defiance and contempt of this Court.
33. List on 19.11.2026 at 2.00 p.m.
34. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two issues are bothering the petitioner. Firstly, with regard to there being social media posts which are derogatory and defamatory for the petitioner, and secondly, that she may be provided with the CCTV footage from the Amity University, Noida with regard to the dates and times relating to the incidents which have given rise to the present proceedings.
35. Having regard to the first grievance, the Court finds that there is substance in such grievance. Accordingly, all social media posts are directed not to be uploaded, and if uploaded all content including AI generated contents relating to the incident which is being looked into in the present proceeding, shall be withdrawn.
36. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) is directed to be impleaded as respondent through its Secretary.
37. The Secretary is directed to ensure compliance of this order by issuing appropriate directions to all concerned and to ensure that the same is complied with.
38. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned ASG, accepts notice on behalf of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. It shall be the duty of the Union of India to ensure compliance of this direction.
39. With regard to the second grievance, as it is the stand of the learned counsel for the Amity University, that all footage of the CCTV has been provided to Mr. Ashok Prasad, it shall be open to the petitioner to view the same and give her inputs, which in any case would be required by Mr. Ashok Prasad and his team, while examining the issue.
40. The reports submitted by Dr. R.M. Sharma and his team and the interim report along with other documents which have been submitted by Mr. Ashok Prasad in a sealed cover, be resealed and kept on record and shall not be opened without the permission of this Court.
41. In the meantime, as honorarium for the services rendered by Dr. R.M. Sharma and his team, for the present, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), shall be paid by the Department of Education, Government of India to Dr. R.M. Sharma as has been done in the past, within one week.
42. Likewise, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), will be transferred by Amity University, Noida to Mr. Ashok Prasad in the manner it had been done in the past, within one week.
43. On the next date of hearing all the Committee Members of the School Monitoring Committee shall be present in Court.
