Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010257562025 2026:GAU-AS:1859- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/6/2026 RATUL BORA S/O BHUDHAR BORA, A RESIDENT OF BORI GOAN, AIGHETI SATRA AIBHETI, NAGAON, AIBHETI, ASSAM-782002. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. 5:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION 5.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002. 6:ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION 6.REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070. Page No.# 2/10 7:NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION 7.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY POCKET-14 SECTOR-8 DWARKA NEW DELHI-110077 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P. JASWANTA SINGH, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, U G C,GA, ASSAM,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 09.02.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. P. Jaswanta Singh, learned counsel who has appeared for the petitioner online. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4, Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Mr. P. Saikia for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. By filing this writ petition in the nature of PIL, the petitioner projects that this PIL is complying to the Gauhati High Court Rules for PIL. 3. The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 20.06.2025, by virtue of which the State has notified the Assam Private Universities (Amendment) Act, 2025 by virtue of which the following provisions of the Assam Private Universities Act, 2007 has been amended. The said provisions are amendment of Section 4 by insertion of Clause (d) of sub-section (4) of Section 4. Insertion of Section 10 A after Section 10 with Sub-Section (1) and (2) thereto. Amendment of Section 44 by insertion of Sub-Section (4) after Page No.# 3/10 Sub-Section (3). The scanned copy of the said Act is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: Page No.# 4/10 Page No.# 5/10 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the provisions inserted by way of amendment are very vague and therefore, the said amended provisions require more clarity from the competent authorities. It is submitted that the requirement of security clearance in respect of the antecedents or precedents of the sponsoring body is wholly unjustified. It is submitted that there cannot be restrictions on the university to involve in any other act which may be deemed necessary including the theological studies. In this regard, it may be stated that restrictions sought to be imposed by newly inserted Section 10 A (1) are to the effect that the university shall not involve in any activity relating to conversion of any of the students, faculties and other staff, further requiring that the university shall maintain secular character. 5. Sub-Section (2) of Section 10A provides that the university shall not open any new technical, medical, para-medical, nursing and other technical courses related to agriculture, veterinary, dairy and other allied subjects with effect from 01.04.2025 and Sub-Section (4) of Section 44 provides for inspection of the private universities by the State Government once in 3 (three) years. On specific query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that there should be a course in any university relating to conversion of students, faculties and other staff or that secular character should not be maintained. 6. It is also submitted that in so far as the new technical courses are concerned, the AICTE Act permit any private university to start such course as is permissible under the said Act. 7. In respect of amendment to Sub-Section (4) Section 44, it is Page No.# 6/10 submitted that the petitioner has no grievance with the inspection being carried out in a private university. However, it is submitted that the clause is vague. 8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the UGC has submitted that he questions the locus standii of the petitioner to file and maintain this PIL. It is further submitted that the authority to allot seats for medical, para- medical, nursing and other technical courses are the respective authorities like Medical Council of India (MCI), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and other prescribed authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is not open to private universities to introduce new course and/ or to increase seats in various technical courses without the approval or sanction of the competent authorities. 9. The Court is of the considered opinion that it is not open for the Court to presume that the Act of State Legislature is vague. Despite giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to point out as to what was the vague clause in the amending Act, no specific submissions have been made with regard to the nature of vagueness. 10. If we refer to the recent Media reporting of an incident which happened in one part of the Country, where there was a bomb blast and the suspect was linked to a particular educational institution with media allegations of radicalization of persons within that institution, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that to maintain peace and security and to promote secularism, it is very essential for the State to examine the security clearance with regard to the antecedents and precedents of the sponsoring body from the Home and Political Department, Govt. of Assam. In the North-East, there Page No.# 7/10 are various religions, tribes and communities who are residing together making a unique fabric of citizens residing in this part of the Country. Therefore, if the State deems it appropriate to have security clearance of persons with unwanted antecedents or precedents to be identified and prevented so that the private universities remain secular, under no circumstances, the provisions of newly inserted clause (d) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 4, as made by the Section 2 of the amendment Act can be said to be vague or otherwise ultravires the Constitution of India. 11. Under the secular fabric of the Country it is expected that none of the Private universities should be involved in activities relating to conversion of any student, faculty or other staff while imparting technical education. However, it is open to them to apply for and obtain clearance to impart theological course only, but not as a part of technical education. It is expected that every authority in furtherance of technical education would maintain a secular character. Therefore, the insertion of Section 10A is not found to be vague in any manner whatsoever requiring any interference of this Court. 12. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned standing counsel for the UGC as well the Higher Education Department has submitted that for technical courses like engineering, medical, para-medical, nursing etc; it is not open for a private university to start new course and/ or to increase seats to such extent as they can or want; rather, they are guided by the authorities who are empowered to inspect the facilities in the private universities so as to allocate seats for certain technical courses. Therefore, the said provisions of Section 10A (2) are not found to be derogatory to any Act or Rules in force within the Country. A private university cannot be empowered with unbridled power to Page No.# 8/10 start new course and/ or to increase seats in technical education, which are otherwise guided by many other factors including overall supervision and control by authorities like Medical Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education etc. 13. As the petitioner is not aggrieved by the instruction of the university which provided for under newly inserted Section 44 (4) of the amending Act, in the considered opinion of the Court, it cannot be said that any of the provision of the amending Act is vitiated by impropriety. The said provisions are not found to have any impact on the constitutional governance or separation of powers. The said provisions are not found to be violative of due process of law or constitutional morality. 14. Though the petitioner has used the term that the said provisions have been hit by colourable legislation, and discrimination, but apart from reference to the case of Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1 and Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 248, none of the provisions could be demonstrated to be discriminatory. As the Country has seen localized unrest in several parts on allegations of conversion activities, it cannot be said that the legislative intention behind the enactment can be said to be objectionable so as to enable the Court to interfere on the ground of being vague. 15. In the PIL, reference was made to the case of Environmental and Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi Administration, (2012) 10 SCC 1. However, as per the e-books available, the said citation relates to Special Reference Case No. 1/2012 under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may as already indicated above, the amending Act has not been Page No.# 9/10 found to be draconian so as to invoke the principle of non-retrogression. The private universities do not have such protection as would entitle them to start such courses as they may deem fit and appropriate rather, they would have to comply with the directions given by competent authorities like AICTE, MCI for starting courses in certain technical education and therefore, that right cannot be given to private universities to open such courses as it may deem fit and proper. 16. The petitioner has also questioned the said Act on the ground of Constitutional sovereignty of educational institutions. In this regard, the petitioner has relied in the case of Osmania University Teachers’ Association Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1987) 4 SCC 671, to project that academic freedom is an essential component of the right to education. In the said case, the Supreme Court of India did not interfere with the power under the Act in reference to make regulations rather, it had approved the provisions under which the commissionerate was empowered to decide on the need for and location of new colleges and courses of study in genuine colleges. Therefore, as the Commissonerate Act was found to be beyond the competence of the State Legislature, and it was found to be void and inoperative. Therefore, the issue raised in the present PIL was not the subject matter on which the case of Osmania University Teachers’ Association (supra) was decided. Similarly, the case of S.K. Modak Vs. H.G.Lumbaram (2011) 8 SCC 1, on which reliance is placed also does not empower technical educational institution with such sovereignty which would enable the institution to impart such courses which it would deem fit and proper as if there were no regulations to control the acts of such private universities. Therefore, the said amending Act is neither found to be discriminatory nor consistent with any other Central and/or State laws. Page No.# 10/10 The amending Act cannot be held to be ultravires the Constitution of India. 17. Resultantly, the PIL is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed without issuance of notice to the respondents. 18. Under the circumstances, as the PIL has been dismissed at the motion stage we refrain from imposing cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant