Universities Can Refuse Affiliation Despite NCTE Approval, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of Jiwaji University to deny affiliation to several B.Ed. colleges for the academic session 2025–26, holding that the institutions were facing serious criminal investigations and had failed to comply with mandatory conditions prescribed by the affiliating authority.

Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by educational societies, students, and institutions challenging the University’s decision to keep their affiliation on hold despite recognition granted earlier by the National Council for Teacher Education.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed that recognition by the NCTE does not automatically entitle an institution to affiliation, particularly when serious deficiencies are found during inspection and criminal proceedings are pending. Court remarked that universities are empowered to insist on strict compliance with statutory conditions and are not bound to grant affiliation mechanically.

The petitions arose after Jiwaji University, by an order dated July 2, 2025, declined affiliation to various B.Ed. colleges for the 2025–26 session. The petitioners contended that they had been granted recognition by the NCTE in 2017 and had enjoyed affiliation in earlier academic years. They argued that the University acted arbitrarily by withholding affiliation solely on the basis of registration of criminal cases by the Special Task Force, Bhopal, alleging offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.

Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi for one of the petitioners, submitted that once recognition under the NCTE Act was granted, the University could not refuse affiliation on grounds unrelated to eligibility of students or admissions. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments including Rungta Engineering College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of Engineering v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University. 

Opposing the petitions, Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody, appearing for the State, and Advocate Tapan Kumar Trivedi for Jiwaji University, contended that affiliation is governed by Statute 27 of the University and is subject to inspection and satisfaction of prescribed standards. It was argued that the inspection committee found serious infrastructural and administrative shortcomings. The University further pointed out that criminal cases had been registered by the STF against the colleges and investigations were ongoing.

A significant issue highlighted before the court was a letter dated May 9, 2025, purportedly issued by the NCTE confirming that recognition of the colleges remained valid. The University alleged that the letter was forged, citing multiple discrepancies including use of an unofficial email address, vernacular language, and deviation from standard NCTE communication practices. Court noted that the University had sought clarification from the NCTE but received no response, strengthening its suspicion regarding the genuineness of the communication.

The bench rejected the argument that NCTE recognition overrides the authority of the affiliating university. It held that the recognition order itself made compliance with conditions imposed by the affiliating body mandatory. Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale to reiterate that affiliation can be denied where institutions fail to meet statutory norms, and that recognition does not confer an absolute right to affiliation.

Describing the colleges as “commercial shops in the name of imparting education,” court observed that the institutions were not only deficient in infrastructure but were also attempting to mislead statutory authorities. It further noted that the petitioners deliberately did not implead the NCTE as a party, apparently to avoid official clarification on the disputed letter.

Court dismissed all writ petitions and directed the colleges to refund fees to students who had already been admitted. It clarified that students could pursue civil or criminal remedies against the institutions if necessary. Court also imposed costs of ₹25,000 each on three petitioner institutions, directing the amount to be deposited in the Juvenile Justice Fund. Interim protection earlier granted was vacated, and students were barred from appearing in examinations unless affiliation was duly granted.

Case Title: LATE SURENDRA PRATAP SHIKSHA SAMITI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS and Connected Matters

Order Date: February 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat