Delhi High Court questions law allowing Indraprastha University affiliation to colleges outside Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the legislative competence of the Delhi assembly to pass a law allowing Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) to provide affiliation to colleges located outside Delhi [Shashank Deo Sudhi v Union of India & Ors]. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked whether the Delhi assembly can make a law which acts extra-territorially in other States. 

“You are encroaching upon the legislative powers of other states. Tomorrow,  Delhi Police can exercise jurisdiction over these places? Even if the state of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan or Haryana has no objection, would it take away their legislative competence or confer any extra-territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi assembly?” the Court asked. 

The Court underscored that affiliation of a college is not a mere ministerial task but comes with great responsibilities and privileges.

The Bench underlined that its observations are prima facie.  

The remarks were made by the Court while dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi seeking to restrain GGSIPU from operating or affiliating colleges beyond the territorial limits of the national capital territory of Delhi. 

Sudhi argued that by granting affiliation to colleges in the National Capital Region (NCR), which includes areas in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the University was acting in breach of territorial jurisdiction as prescribed under its parent legislation and in violation of the binding norms of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

It was stated that Section 4 of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998 (GGSIPU Act) was in clear violation of Article 245 of the Indian Constitution which says that a State legislature can make the laws only for its own state. 

Section 4 of the GGSIPU says that the University shall exercise its powers in the NCR. 

The counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the PIL, stating that the affiliation has been granted to the colleges outside Delhi only after receiving no-objection from those States and that no student or any other stakeholder has raised any complaints. 

The counsel further said that this PIL may not be the right case to decide the law. 

However, the Bench said that it will decide if there is any encroachment of legislative powers in a PIL because the issue was in the public interest.  

“If the executive of the state gives up and does not take care of its own legislative powers, can this issue not be raised in the PIL,” the Court asked. 

It then issued notices to the Central government, UGC, Delhi government and other respondents. 

The High Court gave them four weeks to respond and listed the case for further hearing in December.