Tandon Committee Report

ted to the respective State universities.

A Bench consisting of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma passed this order observing that it was necessary to hear the views of the States before any order was passed as about two lakh students were sought to be shifted to the State universities if the Tandon committee recommendation was to be accepted.

The Bench posted the matter for final hearing on January 11, 2011 and asked the parties concerned to complete the pleadings and file written submissions by then.

Earlier, Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising, appearing for the Centre, submitted that since Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam was not available in Delhi, she was seeking an adjournment. She said Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati would appear in this matter.

Justice Bhandari, while granting adjournment, made it clear to the ASG that since the matter pertained to the lives of about two lakh students, no further adjournment would be granted and it was immaterial for the court whether the AG or any other law officer appeared in the matter.

In response to the notice issued to the 44 DUs, it was submitted on their behalf that none of the DUs was ever informed of the withdrawal of affiliation as a possible outcome of the review by the Tandon committee.

The DUs were led to believe that they were participating in the Centre’s efforts in formulating the policy relating to higher education.

Allegation

It was alleged that the motive behind the churning process had been to clear the field of university education to welcome foreign universities into India. It was submitted that the Centre had sought to stretch the scope of an unrelated writ petition to achieve a collateral object of quickly effecting a wholesale de-recognition of several existing DUs on an ill-formed and still-evolving higher education policy.

Media publicity

The decision to de-recognise 44 DUs was wantonly given wide media publicity even without any forewarning to the affected universities and shifting the stage to the next level, viz. that of rehabilitation of students studying in these institutions and at the same time causing irreparable harm to the reputation of the DUs concerned.

The DUs wanted the court to take into consideration all these factors and render justice to the students.