SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                      [2011] 12 S.C.R. 941


    SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION &                          A
                          ORS.
                           v.
                UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 5961 of 2010)

                      OCTOBER 12, 2011                               8

  [R. V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU
             JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

     National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition             C
 Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007:

        Regulations 8(4) and 8(5) - Educational Institutions
  imparting teacher training course in B.Ed - Prior to coming
  into force of Regulations of 2007, the institutions permitted by
                                                                     0
  National Council for Teacher Education (Council) additional
  intake of students without seeking accreditation and Letter
· Grade B from National Assessment and Accreditation
  Council (NAAC) -Regulations 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulations
  2007, requiring the institutions to be accredited with NAAC        E
  with a Letter Grade B - Challenged - Held: In view of ss. 12(k),
   15 and 32(2)(h) of NCTE Act, the 'Council' is empowered to
  frame Regulations laying down 'cc;mditions' for proper conduct
  of a new course or training under clause (a) of sub-s. (3) of
  s.15 - Under Regulation 8(4), the 'Council' having prescribed
  a 'condition' of accreditation and Letter Grade B by NAAC for      F
  recognition, it can not be held to be sub-delegation of power
· - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - ss.
  12(k), 15, and 32(2)(h) - Administrative Law - Delegation I
  sub-delegation of power- National Council for Teacher
  Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)                        G
  Regulaltions, 2009-Regulations 8(4) and 8(5).

    Regulation 8(5) - Institution granted additional intake,
required to be accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B -
                               941                                   H
    942      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A  Held: "The norms and standards" were prescribed under
   Regulation 8 of Regulation 2002 and were notified by NCTE
   Regulations 2005 and retained in the NCTE Regulations,
   2005 - Thus, Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) remained in force
   even after amended Regulations 2006, but with a rider that
B in case new norms are published for any such teacher
   training course after notification of Regulations of .2005, the .
   conditions prescribed in Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the
   Regulations, 2005 shall not be applicable for such course -
   Subsequently, when Regulations 2007 were enacted, the
C Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were retained
   - In the circumstances, by Regulation 8(5) it was clarified that
   if any institution has been granted additional intake in B.Ed.
   and B.P.Ed. courses after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e.
   13.1.2006, such institution is required to be accredited with
   NAAC with a Letter Grade-a - Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of
0
   Regulations 2005 having been retained, it was always open
   to NCTE to remind the institutions that they were required to
   follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), if were allowed additional
  -intake after 13. 1. 2006 - Therefore, Regulation 8(5) cannot be
   held to be retrospective -Interpretation of Statutes -
E Retrospective operation of Regulations.

       The Appellants-institutions recognised by the
  National Council for Teacher Education (Council) and
  imparting teacher training course (8.Ed.), were permitted
F by the Council additional intake of students for the
  course without seeking accreditation and Letter Grade 8
  from National Assessment and Accreditation Council
  (NAAC). The 'Council' framed "National Council for
  Teacher Education (Recognition. Norms and Procedure)
G Regulations, 2007 requiring the institutions to be
  accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade 8. The
  institutions which had been granted additional intake
  were also required to get themselves accredited .with the
  NAAC with a Letter Grade-8 b~ .4. 2010. The
H appellants challenged tbe-Regutfilions of 2007 before the
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 943
                   OFINDIA

High Court, which declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the A
institutions filed the appeal. Meanwhile, the 'Council'
framed the "National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norm and Procedure) Regulations, 2009
containing identical Regulations 8(4) and 8(5) so far as
B.Ed. course was concerned. The Court permitted the B
appellants to challenge also the validity of Regulations
8(4) and 8(5) of Regulations of 2009.

    It was contended for the appellants that the Council
could not sub-delegate its functions and duties conferred C
upon it by the NCTE Act, 1993 to an outside institution,
namely, NAAC, in absence of express authorisation by
the Act and, as such, Regulation 8(4) was ultra vires the
NCTE Act, 1993; and that since the Act did not authorise
the Council to frame the Regulations retrospectively,
Regulation 8(5) being ex-facie retrospective was violative D
of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

    Dismissing the Appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 A delegate of the legislature is conferred E
with the power to make rules and regulations to carry out
the purposes of the legislation and such rules and
regulations are called delegated legislation or
subordinate legislation. [para 26) [958-H; 959-A]

     Hamdard Dawakhana and Another v. Union of India and F
Others 1960 SCR 671 =AIR 1960 SC 554; Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others v. Union of
India and Others 1985 ( 2) SCR 287 = (1985) 1 SCC 641;
Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities &
Exchange Board of India 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 843 = (2004) G
8 SCC 524; Vasu Dev Singh and Others v. Union of India
and others. 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 535 = (2006) 12 SCC 753
- referred to.

    1.2 If Regulation 8(4) is in broad conformity with the   H
    944      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   objects and policy of the NCTE Act, 1993, and is not in
    conflict with any statutory or constitutional provisions,
    the regulation made by the delegate, namely, the Council,
    will have to be held to be valid. [para 30) [960-B]

       1.3 The NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted with the
8
  objects: (i) to achieve planned and co-ordinated
  development of the teacher education system throughout
  the country and (ii) for laying down the proper
  maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher
  education system. The 'Council' has b9en empowered by
C the parent Act to regulate development of teacher
  education, proper maintenance of norms and the
  standards. A combined reading of s. 12(k), s.15 and
  s.32(2)(h), makes it clear that the 'Council' is empowered
  to frame Regulations laying down 'conditions' for proper
D conduct of a new course or training under clause (a) of
  sub-s. (3) of s.15. [para 31- 33] [960-D-H; 961-A)

       1.4 What will be the 'condition' to be laid down for
  starting a new course or training or for increase in the
E intake of students can be determined only by the
  'Council' in view of clause (h) of sub-s. (2) of s. 32. It can
  prescribe such 'condition', as it deems fit and proper with
  only rider that such 'condition' should not be against any
  of the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 or Rules framed
F thereunder. [para 34) [961-B]

           1.5 Under s. 12(k) the 'Council'- is required to evolve
      suitable performance appraisal system, norms and
      mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised
    . institutions. In fulfilment of the provisions u/s 12(k) of
  G NCTE Act, 1993 and for quality assurance of Teacher
      Education Institutions, the NAAC entered into a
      "Memorandum of Understanding" with the 'Council' for
      executing the process of assessment and accreditation
      of all Teacher Education Institutions coming under the
· H provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. NAAC is an autonomous
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 945
                   OF INDIA

body established by the University Grants Commission           A
(UGC) of India to assess and accredit institutions of
higher education in the country. It is an outcome of the
recommendations of the National Policy in Education
(1986) that laid special emphasis on upholding the quality
of higher education in India. The efforts of 'Council' and     B
NAAC are to ensure and assure the quality of Teacher
Education Institutions in the country complementary to
each other. Combining the teacher education and quality
assurance, the NAAC developed the methodology for
assessment and accreditation of Teacher Education              c
Institutions as appears from the "Manual for Self-
appraisal of Teacher Education Institutions". [para 25]
[958-A-C]

    "Manual of Accreditation" (Revised Edition, January,
2004) published by National Board of Accreditation All India   D
Council for Technical Education, I. G. Sports Complex, J.P.
Estate, New Delhi -referred to.

     1 ~6 In the case in hand under Regulation 8(4) the
'Council' having prescribed a 'condition' for recognition      E
that an institution accredited by NAAC with a Letter Grade
B is entitled to apply for enhancement of intake in
Secondary Teacher Education Programmes of B.Ed. and
B.P.Ed., it can not be held to be sub-delegation of power.
[para 34] [961-E]                                              F
     2.1 Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) were already in vogue
since 13.1.2006 when Regulations dated 27.12.2005 came
into effect. As per Regulation 8(3) only after three
academic sessions an institution was eligible to apply for
enhancement of intake of students in the course. Under         G
Regulation 8(4) only such institution which had
accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B+ was
entitled to apply for enhancement of intake of students
in the Secondary Teacher Education Programme, B.Ed.
and B.P.Ed. [para 36] [963-H; 964-A-B]                         H
    946     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A        State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) vs. Union of
    India and others 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 200 = (2005) 7 sec
    584 - referred to.

       2.2 Thus, Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) remained in force
  for all the Teachers Education Courses, e.g. Elementary
8
  Teachers Education Programme, Bachelor of Elementary
  Education (B.El.Ed.), Standard for Secondary Teacher
  Education Programme, Master of Education (M.Ed.)
  Programme etc., even after amended Regulations 2006,
  but with a rider that in case new norms are published for
C any such Course after notification of Regulations dated
  27 .12.2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4)
  of the Regulations, 2005 dated 27.12.2005 shall not be
  applicable for such course. [para 38] [966-C-D]

D      2.3 Subsequently, when Regulations 2007 were
  enacted, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005
  were retained. In the circun.stances, by Regulation 8(5)
  it was clarified that if any institution has been granted
  additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training
E courses after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e.
  13.1.2006, such institution is required to be accredited
  with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. Regulations 8(3) and
  8(4) of Regulations 2005 dated 27.12.2005 having been
  retained, it was always open to NCTE to remind the
F institutions that they were required to follow Regulations
  8(3) and 8(4), if were allowed additional intake after
  13.1.2006. Therefore, Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to
  be retrospective. Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) having
  nexus with maintenance of standards of teacher
G education and to make qualitative improvement in the
  system of teacher education by phasing out sub-
  standard teaching, the validity of Regulation 8(4) and 8(5)
  cannot be questioned. [para 39-40] [966-E-H; 967-C]


H
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 94 7
                   OFINDIA

                      Case Law Reference:                           A
     1960 SCR 671                 referred to          para 26
     1985 (2) SCR 287             referred to          para 27
    2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 843          referred to      para 28
                                                                    B
    2006 (8) Suppl. SCR535           referred to      para 29
    2005 (3) Suppl. SCR200           referred to      para 35

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5961 of 2010.            •'                                         c
    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2009 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8433 of 2009.

    T.S. Doabia, Sanjay Sharawat, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant,         D
Gopal Singh, R. Malhotra, D.S. Mehra, S.S. Rawat and Naveen
R. Nath for the appearing parties.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. E
Appellants-institutions, which are recognised by the National
Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the
'Council'), impart teacher training course (B.Ed.). On their
request the 'Council' permitted additional intake of students for
such course without seeking accreditation and Letter Grade B        F
from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
Subsequently, the 'Council' framed "National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations,
2007) by notification dated 10th December, 2007 introducing
Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) which the appellants unsuccessfully        G·
challenged before the High Court.

    2. As per Regulation 8(4) an institution is required to be
accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B, whereas as
per Regulation 8(5) those institutions which had been granted       H
    948       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses
    after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13th January,
    2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC
    with a Letter Grade B before 1st April, 2010.

         3. The validity of Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) was challenged
8
    by the appellants on the following grounds:

          (i) Their right to establish and run their institutions enshrined
          under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India stands
          curtailed;
c
          (ii) they will suffer constitutional injury on account of the
          'Council' outsourcing its statutory functions in the absence
          of statutory authorisation for sub-delegation of the
          delegated power;
D         (iii) by giving a retrospective effect to the Regulations and

          (iv) due to non-performance of statutory duties by the
          'Council'.

E        4. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the
    Regulation 8(4) merely puts a 'condition' for making an
    application that the applicant should have itself accredited with
    the NAAC with a Letter Grade B; the Court further held that the
    Regulation 8(5) is prospective in nature, being a 'condition'
F   imposed in continuation of additional intake.

       5. During the pendency of the present appeal the 'Council'
  framed the "National Council for Teacher Education
  (Recognition Norm and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 w.e.f.
  31st August, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "NCTE
G Regulations, 2009") but as Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) is
  identically worded so far as B.Ed. course, this Court by order
  dated 15th March, 2010 permitted the appella11ts to challenge
  the validity of new Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulations,
  2009.
H
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 949
   OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

STAND OF THE APPELLANTS                                            A
     6. Learned counsel for the appellants while contending that
there was no requirement for any approved institutions to get
them accredited with NMC for enhancement of intake of seats
in the course, the following submissions were made:
                                                                   B
    (i) The 'Council' cannot sub-delegate its functions and
    duties conferred upon it by the parent Act i.e. NCTE Act,
    1993 to an outside institution namely NAAC in absence
    of express authorisation by the parent Act. Therefore,
    Regulation 8(4) ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993 and Article     C
    14 of the Constitution of India being against the principle
    "delegates non potest delegare".

    (ii) The NCTE Act, 1993 does not authorise the 'Council'
    to frame Regulations retrospectively; in absence of such
                                                                   0
    power the delegatee the 'Council' cannot make
    subordinate legislation retrospectively. The requirement,
    therefore, contemplated under Regulation 8(5) being ex-
    facie retrospective, taking away the right of the appellants
    to continue with the additional seats of B.Ed. course, is
    violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.             E

    (iii) Regulation 8(5) and paragraph 6 of notice dated 1st
    October, 2008 issued by the 'Council' asking all institutions
    which were already granted additional intake in B.Ed./ ·
    B.P.Ed. courses after 1st January, 2006 to get themselves F
    accredited with NMC with Grade B certificate ultra vires
    the NCTE Act, 1993 disturbing and altering the vested and
    accrued fundamental rights of the institutions.

    7. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to              G
provisions of NCTE Act, 1993 and relevant Rules and the
decisions of this Court which will be discussed at an
appropriate stage.


                                                                   H
      950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 12 S.C.R.


c..   Stand of respondent-NCTE

       8. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the
  respondent-'Council' Regulation 8(4) does not amount to
  delegation of any of the powers of the 'Council'. It merely
  imposed a 'condition' required for opening a new course or
B intake for students as empowered under the NCTE Act, 1993.
  The Regulation 8(5) does not amount to giving effect from
  retrospective date, as such power was already extending under
  Regulations, 2005.

c           9. He would further submit as follows:

             (i) The condition as stipulated in impugned Regulation
            8((4) was already existing even earlier in Regulations,
            2005. Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations, 2005 was
             relaxed for certain period vide notification dated 20th July,
D
            2006 and 10th December, 2007. Some of the institutions
            had made applications to the Regional Committees of the
            'Council' for grant of permission or recognition for
            additional intake of seats in favour of recognised course
            during the period from 21st July, 2006 to 10th December,
E           2007. Their applications were processed and decided
            without insisting upon the requirement of having three
            academic sessions of running the course as was
            stipulated under Regulation 8(3) or having accredited with
            NAAC with a Letter Grade B as was stipulated under
F           Regulation 8(4). Since, the conditions under Regulation
            8(3) and 8(4) were brought into force by Regulations, 2007,
            it was decided that those institutions which have been
            granted recognition for enhancement of seats without
            insisting upon the condition of having accredited with the
G           NAAC, have been directed to get themselves accredited
            with NAAC.

            (ii) The condition stipulated under Regulation 8(4) does not
            amount to sub-delegation of power but merely a 'condition'
H           laid down for grant of recognition of new course or for
 SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 951
    OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

      enhancement of additional intake in the existing course. So A
      far as processing, scrutinising and deciding upon an
      application for recognition/permission for conducting
      teacher training course is concerned, it is the 'Council' and ·
      its Regional Committees which are alone responsible and
      entrusted with discharging such functions as enshrined B
      under the Act.

      (iii) The Regulation 8(5) only provides that the institutions
      who have been granted recognition for enhancement of
      additional intake of seats during the period of relaxation      c
      to obtain accreditation before 1st April, 2010 and the same
      is prospective in nature.

      10. In this case the questions arise for determination are:
      (i) Whether under Regulation 8(4) the 'Council' has sub-        o
      delegated any of its functions and duties conferred by .
      parent Act to NAAC; and

     (ii) Whether Regulation 8(5) is retrospective in nature
     affecting fundamental rights of appellants guaranteed under      E
     Article 19(1 )(g) of Constitution of India.

      11. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned
 counsel for the parties, it would be convenient to notice the
 relevant provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the Regulations
 framed thereunder. ·                                                 F

     12. The NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted to maintain
  standards of teacher education with a view to achieve planned
  and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system
  throughout the country. It was decided that the 'Council' would G
  be provided with necessary resources and capability to accredit
  institutions of teacher education and provide guidance
  regarding curricula and methods. It was also decided to provide
  statutory powers to the 'Council' with the objective of
! determination, maintenance and co-ordination of standards in
                                                                  H
    952      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   teacher education, laying down norms and guidelines for
    various courses, promotion of innovation in this field and to
    establish a suitable system of continuing education of teachers
    (see: Statement of Objects and Reasons of the National Council
    for Teacher Education Act, 1993).
B
         13. Section 12 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the
    'Council' to take all steps for ensuring planned and co-
    ordinated development of teacher education and for the
    determination and maintenance of standards of teacher
C   education. For the purposes of such functions the Council is
    empowered to evolve suitable performance appraisal system,
    norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on
    recognised institutions under Section 12(k) which is as follows:

         "12(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system,
D       .norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on
         recognised institutions;"

         14. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the
    recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the
E   provision of the Act, the Council is empowered to cause
    inspection of any such institution in such manner as may be
    prescribed under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

          15. The 'Council' is empowered to recognise institutions
    offering course or training in teacher education under Section
F   14. For opening a new course or training by recognised
    institutions the 'Council' is empowered under Section 15 to
    grant permission in such form and in such manner as may be
    determined by regulations.

G        16. Under Section 32 the 'Council' is empowered to make
    regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the NCTE Act,
    1993 and the rules made thereunder. Clause (f) and (h) of sub-
    section (2) of Section 32 empowers the 'Council' to frame
    regulations and to lay down 'conditions' for the proper
H   functioning of the institution and 'conditions' for granting
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 953
   OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

recognition under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14       A
and clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15 respectively, as
evident from the said provisions and reproduced hereunder:

     "32.POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS

    (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette,   B
    make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this
    Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out
    the provisions of this Act.

    (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of   c
    the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all
    or any of the following matters, namely :-

          xxxxxxxxx
    (f) conditions required for the proper functioning of the       D
    institution and conditions for granting recognition under
    clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14;

          xxxxxxxxx
    (h) conditions required for the proper conduct of a new         E
    course or training and conditions for granting permission
    under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15;

          xxxxxxxxX.'
                                                                    F
      17. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 the
'Council' framed Regulations National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations;
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "NCTE Regulations, 2005")
notified by Notification No.F.49-42/2005-NCTE (N&S) dated           G
27th December, 2005 published on 13th January, 2006. The
NCTE Regulation, 2005 were applicable to all matters relating
to teacher education programme, covering norms and
standards and conditions for grant of such recognition. Clause
(3) and Clause (4) of Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations, 2005        H
were as follows:
    954        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         "8(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
          enhancement of intake in a teacher education course
          already approved after completion of three academic
          sessions of running the course.

          (4) An Institution shall be permitted to apply for
B
          enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education
          Program.me - B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has
          accredited itself with the National Assessment and
          Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B
          developed by NMC."
c
        18. It was stipulated that pending finalisation of new norms
    and standards, the existing norms were to continue till then.

      19. Subsequently, by notification dated 20th July, 2006 the
0 'Council' framed "National Council for Teacher Education
  (Recognition Norms & Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations,
  2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Regulations,
  2006) as under:

                "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
E         under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the National Council
          for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (73of1993), the National
          Council for Teacher Education hereby makes the following
          regulations, namely:-

F         1.    Short Title and Commencement:

          (1) These regulations may be called the "National Council
          for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms &
          Procedure)(Amendment) Regulations, 2006."
G         2. Applicability

          (1) These regulations shall be applicable to all matters
          pertaining to grant of recognition/ permission to conduct
          a secondary teacher education programme in face to face
H         mode leading to B.Ed. degree or equivalent.
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 955
   OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

    (2) They shall come into force from the date of their A
    publication in the Official Gazette.

    3. Extent of Amendment

    (i) The appendix - 7 of the norms and standards which was
    notified by NCTE Regulations, 2002 and retained in the      B
    NCTE Regulations, 2005 shall be replaced by the
    appendix - 1 to this amendment and be read as part
    thereof.

    Note:- For enhancement of intake in the course where new    c
    norms have been published after notification of the
    Regulations dated 27 .12.2005, the conditions prescribed
    in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the said Regulation shall not be
    applicable."                                       ·

It was followed by Regulations, 2007 framed by the 'Council' D
bringing back the condition of accreditation of institution with
NAAC with the Letter Grade B as was prescribed under
Regulation 8(4) of NCTE Regulations, 2005. Those institutions
who were granted additional intake in B.Ed and B.P.Ed.
teacher training courses after NCTE Regulations, 2005 i.e 13th E
January, 2006 were also asked to get themselves accredited
with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. Apart from the impugned
Regulation 8(4) and 8(5), Regulation 8(3) of NCTE Regulations,
2007 being also relevant are quoted hereunder:
                                                                F
         "8(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
    enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education
    courses already approved, after completion of three
    academic sessions of running the respective courses.

         (4) An Institution shall be permitted to apply for G
    enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education
    Programme - B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has
    accredited itself with the National Assessment and
    Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B
    developed by NAAC.                                      H
    956       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A               (5) An institution that has been granted additional
          intake in B.Ed. and BP.Ed. teacher training courses after
          promulgation of the Regulations, 2005,i.e., 13.1.2006
          shall have to be accredited itself with the National
          Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a
s         Letter Grade B under the new grading system developed
          by NAAC before /st April, 2010 failing which the additional
          intake granted shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic
          session 2010-2011."

          20. As stated earlier, during the pendency of the present
C   civil appeal the NCTE Regulations, 2009 was enacted with
    similar worded provisions under Regulation 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5).

        21. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council
  (NAAC) is an autonomous body established by the University
D Grants Commission (UGC) of India to assess and accredit
  institutions of higher education in the country. It is an outcome
  of the recommendations of the National Policy in Education
  (1986) that laid special emphasis on upholding the quality of
  higher education in India, as appears from "Manual of
E Accreditation" (Revised Edition, January, 2004) published by
  National Board of Accreditation All India Council for Technical
  Education, l.G. Sports Complex, l.P. Estate, New Delhi -110
  002.

        22. The system of higher education in India has expanded
F rapidly during the last fifty years and in spite of built-in regulatory
  mechanisms that ensure satisfactory levels of quality in the
  functioning of higher education institutions, there have been
  criticisms that the country has permitted the mushrooming of
  institutions of higher education with fancy programme and
G substandard facilities and consequent dilution of standards. To
  address the issues of deterioration in quality, the National
  Policy on Education (1986) and the Plan of Action (POA-1992)
  was made which spelt out the strategic plans for the policies
  and advocated the establishment of an independent national
H
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 957
   OF INDIA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

accreditation body. Consequently, the NAAC was established            A
in 1994 with its headquarters at Bangalore.

     23. The Methodology for the assessment of a unit, the
NAAC follows a three-stage process which is a combination
of self-study and peer review, as follows:
                                                                      B
      (1)   The preparation and submission of a self-study
            report by the unit of assessment.

      (2)   The on-site visit of the peer team for validation of
            the self-study report and for recommending the            c
            assessment outcome to the NAAC.

      (3)   The final decision by the Executive Committee of
            the NAAC.

The self-study report validated by peers is the backbone of the       D
whole exercise. Manuals have been developed to suit different
units of higher education, with detailed guidelines on the
preparation 'of the self-study report and .the other aspects of
assessment and accreditation.
                                                                      E
      24. Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 deals with function of
the Council. Under Section 12(k) the 'Council' is required to
evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and
mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised
institutions which reads as under:                                    F
    "12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the
    Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
    planned and co-ordinated development of teacher
    education and for the determination and maintenance of
    standards for teacher education and for the purposes of           G
    performing its functions under this Act, the Council may -
    (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms
    and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised
    institutions;                                                     H
    958       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 12 S.C.R.


A      25. In fulfilment of the provisions under Section 12(k) of the
  NCTE Act, 1993 i.e. to evolve suitable performance appraisal
  systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability
  on recognised institutions and for quality assurance of Teacher
  Education Institutions, the NAAC entered into an "Memorandum
B of Understanding"(MOU) with the 'Council' for executing the
  process of assessment and accreditation of all Teacher
  Education Institutions coming under the provisions of NCTE Act,
  1993. The efforts of 'Council' and NAAC are to ensure and
  assure the quality of Teachers Education Institutions in the
c country complementary to each other. Combining the teacher
  education and quality assurance, the NAAC developed the
  methodology for assessment and accreditation of Teacher
  Education Institutions as appears from the "Manual for Self-
  appraisal of Teacher Education Institutions". The aforesaid facts
o can be noticed from the documents supplied by the parties
  which prescribe the methodology of assessment required to be
  followed by the NAAC as per strategic plans, policies and
  memorandum of understanding reached between NAAC and
  the 'Council'.
E       26. Before we decide on the validity of Regulations 8(4)
    and 8(5), we must first deal with the law as laid down by this
    Court in different decisions with regard to the power of a
    delegate of a legislature, such as the Council in this case, to
    make rules and regulations. In Hamdard Dawakhana and
F   Another v. Union of India and Others [AIR 1960 SC 554], this
    Court held:

          "..... Thus when the delegate is given the power of making
          rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry
G         out and subserve the purposes of the legislation the
          manner in which the requirements of the statute are to be
          met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed it is an
          exercise of delegated legislation ..... "

    Thus, a delegate of the legislature is conferred with the power
H
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 959
   OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

to make rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of the      A
legislation and such rules and regulations are called delegated
legislation or subordinate legislation.

     27. This Court has also laid down the grounds on which
such delegated legislation or subordinate legislation can be        B
challenged in the Court. In Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Private Ltd. and others v. Union of India and Others
[(1985) 1 SCC 641 ], this Court has observed in Para 75 at
page 689:

    "A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same     C
    degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed
    by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may
    be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary
    legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be
    questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the        D ·
    statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned
    on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That
    is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary
    legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it
    is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not           E
    being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly
    arb1•t rary ..... . "

     28. Again in Clariant International Ltd. and Another v.
Securities & Exchange Board of India [(2004) 8 SCC 524],            F
this Court held in Para 63 at page 547:

    "When any criterion is fixed by a statute or by a policy, an
    attempt should be made by the authority making the
    delegated legislation to follow the policy formulation
    broadly and substantially and in conformity therewith."         G

     29. The grounds on which the validity of a delegated
legislation can be challenged have also been discussed at
length in Vasu Dev Singh and Others·v. Union of India and
                                                                    H
    960      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   others [(2006) 12 SCC 753] in which the Court has reiterated
    the aforesaid law.

         30. The aforesaid law laid down by tlie Court on the
    grounds of judicial review of delegated legislation or
    subordinate legislation will have to be borne in mind while
8
    deciding the validity of Regulation 8(4) made by the Council.
    In other words, if the Regulation 8(4) is in broad conformity with
    the objects and policy of the Act and is not in conflict with any
    statutory or constitutional provisions, the regulation made by the
    delegate, namely, the Council, will have to be held to be valid.
c
       31. We find that the NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted with the
  object (i) to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of
  the teacher education system throughout the country and (ii) for
  laying down the proper maintenance of norms and standards
D in the teacher education system; the 'Council' has been
  empowered by the parent Act to regulate development of
  teacher education, proper 111:1intenance of norms and the
  standards.

E       Section 12(k) empowers the 'Council' to maintain teacher
    education, its performance appraisal system and to lay down
    norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on
    recognised institutions.

        Under Section 15 the 'Council' can determine as to which
F institution be allowed to offer new course or training in teacher
  education; for which the 'Council' is empowered under Section
  32(2)(h) to prescribe 'condition' for grant of such permission
  and recognition.

G        32. The 'Council' is also empowered to cause inspection
    of any institution through any person under Section 13 of the
    NCTE Act, 1993.

     33. Combined reading of Section 12(k), Section 15 and
  Section 32(2)(h), makes it clear that the 'Council' is
H empowered to frame a Regulation laying down 'conditions' for
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 961
   OF INDIA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

proper conduct of a new course or training under clause (a) of        A
sub-section. (3) of Section 15.

    34. What will be the 'condition' to be laid down for starting
a new course or training or for increase in the intake of students
can be determined only by the 'Council' in view of clause (h) of      8
sub-section (2) of Section 32. It can prescribe the such
'condition', as it deems fit and proper with only rider that such
'condition' should not be against any of the provisions of the
NCTE Act, 1993 or Rules framed thereunder.

     For example the 'Council' may prescribe a condition that         C
the qualification of a teacher should be a degree of a particular
subject obtained from a recognised University, to grant
recognition to start a new course. If such condition is
prescribed it will not amount to delegation of its power to an
University to grant such degree.                                      D
     In the case in hand under Regulation 8(4) the 'Council'
having prescribed a 'condition' for recognition that an institution
accredited by NAAC with a Letter Grade B is entitled to apply
for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education              E
Programme-B.Ed. &B.P.Ed., it can not be held to be sub-
delegation of power, as contended by the appellants. The first
question is, thus answered in negative against the appellants.

     35. In the case of State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle)
vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 584,           F ·
Supreme Court noticed and defined the expression
"retrospective" as under:

    "19. Every sovereign legislature possesses the right to
    make retrospective legislation. The power to make laws            G
    includes the power to give it retrospective effect. Craies
    on Statute Law (7th Edn.) at p. 387 defines retrospective
    statutes in the following words:
            "A statute is to be deemed to be retrospective,
                                                                      H
    962       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A               ·which takes away or impairs any vested right
                 acquired under existing laws, or creates a new
                 obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a
                 new disability in respect to transactions or
                 considerations already past."
B
          20. Judicial Dictionary (13th Edn.) by K.J. Aiyar,
          Butterworth, p. 857, states that the word "retrospective"
          when used with reference to an enactment may mean (i)
          affecting an existing contract; or (ii) reopening up of past,
          closed and completed transaction; or (iii) affecting accrued
c         rights and remedies; or (iv) affecting procedure. Words and
          Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 37-A, pp. 224-25, defines
          a "retrospective or retroactive law" as one which takes
          away or impairs vested or accrued rights acquired under
          existing laws. A retroactive law takes away or impairs
D         vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a
          new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new
          disability, in respect to transactions or considerations
          already past.

E         21. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyar (3rd
          Edn., 2005) the expressions "retroactive" and
          "retrospective" have been defined as follows at p. 4124,
          Vol. 4:

                 "Retroactive.-Acting backward; affecting what is
F                past. (Of a statute, ruling, etc.) extending in scope
                 or effect to matters that have occurred in the past.
                 - Also termed retrospective. (Black's Law
                 Dictionary, 7th Edn., 1999)

G                ' "Retroactivity" is a term often used by lawyers but
                 rarely defined. On analysis it soon becomes
                 apparent, moreover, that it is used to cover at least
                 two distinct concepts. The first, which may be called
                 "true retroactivity", consists in the application of a
H                new rule of law to an act or transaction which was
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 963
   OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

           completed before the rule was promulgated. The            A
           second concept, which wHI be referred to as "quasi-
           retroactivity", occurs when a· new rule of law is
           applied to an act or transaction in the process of
           completion .... The foundation of these concepts is
           the distinction between completed and pending             B
           transactions .... ' T.C. Hartley, Foundations of
           European Community Law, p. 129 (1981).

           *    *             *
           Retrospective.-Looking back; contemplating what           C
           is past.

           Having operation from a past time.

           'Retrospective' is somewhat ambiguous and that
           good deal of confusion has been caused by the fact        D
           that it is used in more senses than one. In general,
           however, the courts regard as retrospective any
           statute which operates on cases or facts coming
           into existence before its commencement in the
           sense that it affects, even if for the future only, the   E
           character or consequences of transactions
           previously entered into or of other past conduct.
           Thus, a statute is not retrospective merely because
           it affects existing rights; nor is it retrospective
           merely tiecause a part of the requisite for its action    F
           is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing."
           (Vol. 44, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., p.
           570, para 921.)"
     Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether Regulation 8(5)       G
takes away any right of the appellants or impairs any vested
right acquired by appellants under the existing law or has
created any new obligation in their part.

    36. Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) were already in vogue since
                                                                     H
    964          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A 13th January, 2006 when Regulations dated 27th December,
  2005 came into effect. As per Regulation 8(3) only after three
  academic sessions an institution was eligible to apply for
  enhancement of intake of students in the course. Under
  Regulation 8(4) only such institution which had accredited itself
B with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B+ was entitled to apply
  for enhancement of intake of students in the Secondary Teacher
  Education Programme, B.Ed. and B.P.Ed.

       37. ''The norms and standards" were prescribed under
    Regulation 8 of Regulation 2002 as follows:-
C
          "Norms and Standards for various teacher education
          programmes

           (i)    The Norms and Standards for various teacher
D                 education courses are given in the Appendices 3
                  to 14 as indicated below which an institution offering
                  the said course is required to comply with.

    (i)    Norms and Standards for Pro School             Appendix-3
           Teacher Education Programme
E
    (ii) Norms and Standards for Nursery                  Appendix-4
           Teacher Education Programme
    (iii) Norms and Standards for Elementary              Appendix-5
           Teacher Education Programme
F   (iv) Norms and Standards for Bachelor of              Appendix-6
           Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)
    (v) Norms and Standards for Secondary                 Appendix-7
           Teacher Education Programme
    (vi) Norms and Standards for Master of                Appendix-8
G          Education (M.Ed.) Programme
    (vii) Norms and Standards for Master of               Appendix-9
           Education (M.Ed.) Programme (Part time)
    (viii) Norms and Standards for Certificate in         Appendix-10
           Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) Programme
H
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 965
   OF INDIA[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

(ix) Norms and Standards for Bachelor of          Appendix-11     A
     Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Programme
(x)   Norms and Standards for Master of           Appendix-12
      Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) Programme
(xi) Norms and Standards for 8.Ed. (Open          Appendix-13
     and Distance Learning· System)                               B
(xii) Norms and Standards for M.Ed. (Open         Appendix-14
      and Distance Learning System)

       (ii)   The norms and standards herein notified are
              minimum and essential. The institution may          C
              strengthen further the physical and instructional
              infrastructure."

The aforesaid "norms and standards" were notified by NCTE
Regulations 2002 and retained in the NCTE Regulations, 2005.      D
Appendix-? was related to "norms and standards for
Secondary Teacher Education Programme":

     The norms related to Secondary Teacher Education
Programme leading to B.Ed. Degree (face-to-face) were in
process of change. After finalization of such norms relating to   E
revision of Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading
to 8,Ed. Degree Cours~ (face-to-face) the NCTE enacted
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006. By amended
Regulation 3 the "norms and standards", as was stipulated in      F
Appendix-7 was replaced by Appendix-1 of the Amended
Regulations, 2006. The said Appendix-1 was made a part of
the main Regulations, 2005 dated 27th December, 2005. By
a 'Note' below the said amended Regulation 3 it was clarified
that conditions prescribed under Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) shall   G
not be applicable in certain cases, as shown hereunder:

      "3. Extent of Amendment

      (i). The appendix - 7 of the norms and standards which
      was notified by NCTE Regulation, 2002 and retained in       H
    966       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         the NCTE Regulations, 2005 shall be replaced by the
          appendix-1 to this amendment and be read as part thereof.

          Note:- For enhancement of intake in the course where new
          norms have been published after notification of the
          Regulations dated 27.12.2005, the conditions prescribed
B
          in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the said Regulation shall not be
          applicable."

         38. Thereby, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) remained in
    force for all Teachers Education Courses, e.g. Elementary
C   Teachers Education Programme, Bachelor of Elementary
    Education (B.El.Ed.). Standard for Secondary Teacher
    Education Programme, Master of Education (M.Ed.)
    Programme etc., even after amended Regulations 2006, but
    with a rider that in case new norms are published for any such
D   Course after notification of Regulations dated 27th December,
    2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the
    Regulations, 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 shall not be
    applicable for such course.

E         39. Subsequently, when Regulations 2007 were enacted,
    the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were
    retained. In the aforesaid circumstances by Regulation 8(5) it
    was clarified tha\ if any institution has been granted additional
    intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses after
    enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such
F   institution is required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a
    Letter Grade B.

       It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of
  Regulations 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 having
G retained, it was always open to NCTE to remind the institutions
  that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), if
  were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For
  the reason aforesaid the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be
  retrospective. The second question is, thereby, answered in
H
'SWAMI VNEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v. UNION 967
    OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)

 negative against the appellants.                                    A
       40. Further, as plain reading of the Regulations 8(3), 8(4)
  and 8(5) makes it clear that right of exemption, if any, accrued
  to an institution in view of 'Note' below Regulaticin 3 of
  amended Regulations 2006, has not been taken away nor
                                                                     8
  impaired any vested right acquired by any institution and as no
  new obligation on the part of any institution has been created,
  they being governed by Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) since 13th
  January, 2006, the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be
  retrospective. The Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) having nexus    C
  with maintenance of standards of teacher education and to
  make qualitative improvement in the system of teacher
  education by phasing out sub-standard teaching, the validity of
  Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) cannot be questioned. In absence of
··any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be no order
  as to costs.                                                       D

 R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.