Prosecution Of Fraudulent Educational Institutions Issuing Fake Degrees
🧾 1. Introduction: Fraudulent Educational Institutions in India
Fake universities or colleges issuing bogus degrees is a growing problem in India. These institutions often claim recognition from government bodies or foreign universities but issue fraudulent certificates, which are then used for employment, immigration, or higher studies.
Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 463–468 – Forgery of documents, certificates, or degrees.
Section 471 – Using forged documents as genuine.
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.
University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956
Section 22 – Only recognized universities can confer degrees.
UGC maintains a list of recognized universities; degrees from unrecognized institutions are invalid.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
If fraudulent degrees are promoted online, Sections 43, 66C, 66D may apply (digital fraud, identity misrepresentation).
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Students or employers can file complaints as “deficiency in service”.
⚖️ 2. Key Case Laws in India
Case 1: D.R. Subramaniam v. Union of India (2007) – Fake Universities
Court: Madras High Court
Facts:
Several institutions claimed to be universities and issued degrees without UGC recognition.
Students and employers filed complaints after discovering degrees were invalid.
Judgment:
Court held that issuing degrees without UGC recognition amounts to cheating under IPC Section 420.
The institutions were directed to stop operations and refund students’ fees.
Criminal prosecution was also initiated against administrators.
Significance:
Established that fraudulent issuance of degrees is a criminal offense, not merely an administrative violation.
Case 2: UGC v. Amity Education Group (2009)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
A few private institutions falsely claimed recognition from foreign universities and issued fake certificates.
UGC intervened and challenged their advertisements and practices.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that only UGC-recognized universities can award degrees under Section 22 of UGC Act.
Institutions misleading students can face civil liability, criminal charges, and fines.
Significance:
Reinforced UGC’s authority to prevent issuance of fake degrees and prosecute violators.
Case 3: University of Delhi v. K.K. Verma (2012) – Forged Degrees for Employment
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
An employee submitted a forged degree certificate for government service.
The degree was from a non-recognized university.
Judgment:
Employee was prosecuted under Sections 420 and 471 IPC.
Employer voided the appointment.
Court held that using fake degrees amounts to criminal fraud, even if the person was unaware initially.
Significance:
Clarified that both institutions issuing fake degrees and individuals using them can be prosecuted.
Case 4: All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) v. Omkar Institute (2015)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Omkar Institute claimed AICTE recognition and issued engineering degrees without authorization.
Students filed complaints after degrees were rejected by employers.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that issuing degrees without statutory authority is a punishable offense under IPC 420 and 468.
Court directed UGC and AICTE to maintain a list of fake institutions and notify the public.
Significance:
Landmark case demonstrating that government oversight agencies can directly prosecute fraudulent institutions.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Universal Institute (2016)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts:
Institute issued medical and management degrees claiming AICTE and UGC recognition, which it did not have.
Victims approached the police alleging cheating and forgery.
Judgment:
Court convicted administrators under IPC Sections 420, 463–468, and 471.
Emphasized that students are victims of fraud, and institutions cannot claim ignorance.
Imprisonment ranged from 2–5 years, plus fines.
Significance:
Reinforced that criminal prosecution for fraudulent educational practices is viable under IPC.
Case 6: UGC v. National Institute of Education (2018)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
National Institute of Education operated as a fake university, issuing degrees for MBA and MCA programs.
Advertisements online misled students.
Judgment:
Court emphasized civil and criminal liability:
Civil: Refund fees to students.
Criminal: Prosecution for cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 420, 463, 468, 471.
Court directed Police and UGC to coordinate for criminal action.
Significance:
Highlighted online promotion of fake degrees as a prosecutable cybercrime as well.
Case 7: Indian Institute of Management Studies v. State (2020)
Court: Kerala High Court
Facts:
Institution issued “MBA degrees” without recognition. Several students used them for employment.
Case involved both institution administrators and students using fake degrees.
Judgment:
Court held that administrators committed criminal offense (IPC 420, 468, 471).
Students unknowingly enrolled were treated as victims, not offenders.
Court recommended awareness campaigns and maintaining a UGC list of fake institutions.
Significance:
Emphasized prosecution of the institution over students, unless the student is complicit.
⚖️ 3. Key Points on Prosecution
| Aspect | Legal Provision | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Cheating by issuing fake degree | IPC 420 | Up to 7 years + fine |
| Forgery of degree certificate | IPC 463–468 | Up to 2–7 years + fine |
| Using forged document as genuine | IPC 471 | Up to 2–7 years + fine |
| Operating unrecognized university | UGC Act Section 22 | Cease operations + civil & criminal action |
| Online promotion | IT Act 66C, 66D | Imprisonment up to 3 years + fine |
🧩 4. Conclusion
Fraudulent educational institutions violate both statutory law and criminal law.
Prosecution is generally under IPC Sections 420, 463–468, 471 and UGC Act.
Courts have consistently held administrators criminally liable, and students using fake degrees may also face prosecution if complicit.
Coordination between UGC, AICTE, police, and IT authorities is crucial for detection and prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments