Comparative study of higher education governance
Comparative Study of Higher Education Governance
Overview
Higher education governance refers to the system through which universities and colleges are regulated, administered, and supervised by various stakeholders such as government bodies, university authorities, and judiciary. Governance involves a balance between institutional autonomy and state control, ensuring quality, transparency, and rights of students and faculty.
The governance structure varies worldwide, but common themes include:
Autonomy of institutions vs. regulation by government
Academic freedom
Administrative control and accountability
Rights of students and faculty
Judicial intervention in governance issues
Key Legal Issues in Higher Education Governance:
Extent of institutional autonomy
State’s power to regulate and control universities
Academic freedom as a constitutional right
Role of administrative authorities in university governance
Protection of fundamental rights of students and faculty
Judicial review of university decisions
DETAILED CASE LAW ANALYSIS
1. University of Delhi v. Raj Singh (1961) AIR 1848
Topic: Autonomy of Universities and Administrative Control
Facts:
The University of Delhi attempted to regulate admissions and appointments, which was challenged.
Court’s View:
Universities enjoy autonomy in academic and administrative matters.
However, autonomy is not absolute and is subject to laws made by Parliament or State legislatures.
State has a legitimate interest in ensuring universities are run properly.
Significance:
Recognized institutional autonomy but within legal framework.
Established the balance between autonomy and state regulation.
2. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 3 SCC 592
Topic: Autonomy vs. Regulatory Oversight in Private Educational Institutions
Facts:
Challenge to state’s power to regulate admission procedures in private medical colleges.
Court’s Judgment:
Private unaided institutions have autonomy in management but are subject to reasonable state regulation.
Regulatory measures to ensure transparency and prevent capitation fees are valid.
Autonomy does not mean a license to violate public interest or law.
Significance:
Affirmed limited autonomy of private institutions.
Balanced autonomy with public interest and anti-corruption concerns.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Topic: Role of Universities in Protecting Fundamental Rights (Sexual Harassment)**
Facts:
Although not directly on governance, this case addressed universities' responsibility in creating safe environments for female students.
Court’s Holding:
Universities and educational institutions must ensure fundamental rights, including protection against sexual harassment.
Institutions have a duty of care and governance responsibility.
Significance:
Expanded governance to include protection of rights.
Universities accountable for maintaining safe and nondiscriminatory environments.
4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
Topic: Private Educational Institutions: Autonomy and Regulation
Facts:
Dispute over state regulation of private professional colleges.
Court’s Findings:
Private unaided educational institutions have a right to administer their institutions.
State can impose reasonable regulations for maintaining standards and transparency.
Emphasized right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g).
Significance:
Landmark judgment affirming institutional autonomy with state regulation.
Introduced principles of proportionality and reasonableness in governance.
5. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
Topic: Admission Policies and Autonomy
Facts:
Challenge to Maharashtra’s legislation regulating admissions in private unaided professional colleges.
Court’s Judgment:
Universities and private colleges have autonomy in admissions.
Government’s role is to ensure transparency and fairness, not micromanagement.
Quota systems and regulatory interventions must be within constitutional limits.
Significance:
Reaffirmed autonomy in admission processes.
Allowed state intervention only to protect public interest and constitutional mandates.
6. Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 2 SCC 7
Topic: Academic Freedom as a Fundamental Right
Facts:
Challenge regarding administrative interference in university governance affecting academic freedom.
Court’s Reasoning:
Academic freedom is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Universities must be free from undue government interference in academic matters.
Interference is permissible only to the extent of reasonable regulation.
Significance:
Recognized academic freedom as a constitutional right.
Protected universities from arbitrary administrative control.
7. Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
Topic: Judicial Review of University Decisions
Facts:
A student challenged university decisions on disciplinary grounds.
Court’s View:
University decisions are amenable to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fide, or violation of principles of natural justice.
Courts should exercise restraint but protect rights.
Significance:
Clarified the role of judiciary in governance disputes.
Ensured accountability and fairness in university administration.
Comparative Observations
| Country/Region | Governance Model | Autonomy | State Role | Judicial Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | Mixed (autonomy + regulation) | High, but regulated | Regulatory oversight for standards, admissions | Active review for rights protection |
| USA | High institutional autonomy | Universities largely self-governed | Limited state intervention | Courts protect academic freedom & contractual rights |
| UK | Autonomous institutions | Universities have broad autonomy | Government funds and sets frameworks | Courts intervene in governance disputes |
| Europe | Publicly funded, regulated | Varies; autonomy balanced with state control | Quality assurance agencies involved | Judicial protection of rights |
| China | Strong state control | Limited autonomy | State exercises significant control | Limited judicial review |
CONCLUSION
Higher education governance involves a delicate balance between institutional autonomy and state regulation.
Courts in India have consistently protected academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and fundamental rights of students and faculty.
At the same time, the state’s role in ensuring quality, transparency, and fairness is recognized and upheld.
Judicial intervention ensures that governance decisions comply with constitutional principles and natural justice.
This comparative approach highlights that autonomy is never absolute but calibrated according to public interest and constitutional mandates.
RELATED Blog
0 comments