REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5961 OF 2010

SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE  OF EDUCATION & ORS.         … APPELLANTS

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. 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  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  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  

1

institutions  which  had been granted  additional  intake  in  B.Ed.  and B.P.Ed.  

teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005  i.e. 13 th  

January, 2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC with a  

Letter Grade B before Ist April, 2010.

3. The  validity  of  Regulation  8(4)  and  8(5)  was  challenged  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;

(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;

(iii) by giving a retrospective effect to the Regulations and

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

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’ 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)  

2

Regulations,  2009  w.e.f.  31st August,  2009  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

“NCTE Regulations,  2009”)  but as  Regulation 8(4)  and 8(5) is  identically  

worded so far as B.Ed. course,  this Court by order dated 15 th March, 2010  

permitted the appellants to challenge the validity of new Regulation 8(4) and  

8(5) of Regulations, 2009.  

STAND OF THE APPELLANTS

6. Learned counsel for the appellants while contending that there was no  

requirement for any approved institutions to get them accredited with NAAC  

for enhancement of intake of seats in the course, the following submissions  

were made:

(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 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 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  

3

with the additional seats of B.Ed. course, is violative of Article 19(1)(g)  

of the Constitution.

(iii) Regulation  8(5)  and  paragraph  6  of  notice  dated  Ist  October,  

2008 issued by the ‘Council’ asking all institutions which were already  

granted additional intake in B.Ed./B.P.Ed. courses after Ist January, 2006  

to get themselves accredited with NAAC 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 provisions of NCTE Act,  

1993  and  relevant  Rules  and  the  decisions  of  this  Court  which  will  be  

discussed at an appropriate stage.  

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 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.   

9. He would further submit as follows:

4

(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, 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, 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  

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 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’ laid down for grant of  

recognition of new course or for enhancement of additional intake in the  

existing course. So 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  

5

which are alone responsible and entrusted with discharging such functions  

as enshrined 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 to obtain accreditation before Ist 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-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  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.

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  be  provided  with  necessary  resources  and  capability  to  

accredit  institutions  of  teacher  education  and  provide  guidance  regarding  

6

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  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).

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 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,   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  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 14.  For opening a new course or  

7

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.

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  

functioning of the institution and ‘conditions’ for granting recognition under  

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 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,   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   the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or   any of the following matters, namely :-  

xxx xxx xxx

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

xxx xxx xxx

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

8

xxx xxx xxx”

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  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 were as follows:

“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   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.”

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 ‘Council’ framed  

“National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)  

(Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment  

Regulations, 2006) as under:

9

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

1. Short Title and Commencement:

(1) These regulations may be called the “National Council for   Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)(Amendment)   Regulations, 2006.”

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  mode   leading to B.Ed. degree or equivalent.

(2) They  shall  come  into  force  from  the  date  of  their   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  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 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’  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 January, 2006 were also  

asked to get themselves accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B.   Apart  

10

from  the  impugned  Regulation  8(4)  and  8(5),  Regulation  8(3)  of  NCTE  

Regulations, 2007 being also relevant are quoted hereunder:

“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   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.

(5) An  institution  that  has  been  granted  additional   intake  in  B.Ed.  and  B.P.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 Letter Grade B under the   new grading system developed by NAAC before Ist 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 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 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 Accreditation” (Revised Edition, January, 2004)  

11

published by National Board of Accreditation All India Council for Technical  

Education, I.G. Sports Complex,  I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002.

22. The system of higher education in India has expanded 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  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  

accreditation body. Consequently, the NAAC was established 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:

(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 assessment outcome to   the NAAC.

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

12

The self-study report validated by peers is the backbone of the 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.  

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:

“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 performing its functions under   this Act, the Council may –  

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

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 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  

13

NAAC are to ensure and assure the quality of Teachers 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  Institutions  as  appears  from  the  

“Manual for Self-appraisal of Teacher Education Institutions”. The aforesaid  

facts  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’.

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 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 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 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.  

14

27.  This  Court  has  also  laid  down  the  grounds  on  which  such  delegated  

legislation or subordinate legislation can be 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 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 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  being  reasonable,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  is  manifestly   arbitrary……”

28. Again in  Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities &  

Exchange Board of India [(2004) 8 SCC 524], 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.”

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 others [(2006) 12 SCC 753] in  

which the Court has reiterated the aforesaid law.

30. The aforesaid law laid down by the Court on the grounds of judicial  

review of delegated legislation or subordinate legislation will have  

15

to be borne in mind while 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.  

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 in the teacher education system; the ‘Council’ has been  

empowered by the parent Act to regulate development of   teacher education,   

proper maintenance of norms and the standards.   

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 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.  

32. The ‘Council’ is also empowered to cause inspection of any institution  

through any person under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

16

33. Combined reading of Section 12(k), Section 15 and Section 32(2)(h),  

makes it clear that the ‘Council’ is empowered to frame a Regulation laying  

down ‘conditions’ for proper conduct of a new course or training under clause  

(a) of 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  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  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.

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 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.  

17

35. In the case of  State Bank’s Staff Union (Madras Circle) vs. Union of   

India and others  reported in  (2005) 7 SCC 584,  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 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,  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.”

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  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  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.

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  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)

‘  “Retroactivity”  is  a  term  often  used  by  lawyers  but   rarely  defined.  On  analysis  it  soon  becomes  apparent,   

18

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 new rule of law to an act or   transaction  which  was  completed  before  the  rule  was   promulgated. The second concept, which will 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 transactions....’   T.C. Hartley,  Foundations of European Community Law, p.   129 (1981).

* * * Retrospective.—Looking  back;  contemplating  what  is   

past. Having operation from a past time. ‘Retrospective’  is  somewhat  ambiguous  and  that  good   

deal of confusion has been caused by the fact 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 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 because a part of the requisite for its action 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) 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 13 th 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 with the NAAC with a  

19

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:-

“Norms and Standards for various teacher education programmes

(i) The Norms and Standards for various teacher 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   Teacher Education Programme

Appendix-3

(ii) Norms and Standards for Nursery Teacher   Education Programme

Appendix-4

(iii) Norms  and  Standards  for  Elementary   Teacher Education Programme

Appendix-5

(iv) Norms  and  Standards  for  Bachelor  of   Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)

Appendix-6

(v) Norms  and  Standards  for  Secondary   Teacher Education Programme

Appendix-7

(vi) Norms  and  Standards  for  Master  of   Education (M.Ed.) Programme

Appendix-8

(vii) Norms  and  Standards  for  Master  of   Education (M.Ed.) Programme (Part time)

Appendix-9

(viii) Norms  and  Standards  for  Certificate  in   Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) Programme

Appendix-10

(ix) Norms  and  Standards  for  Bachelor  of   Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Programme

Appendix-11

(x) Norms  and  Standards  for  Master  of   Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) Programme

Appendix-12

(xi) Norms and Standards for B.Ed. (Open and   Distance Learning System)

Appendix-13

(xii) Norms and Standards for M.Ed. (Open and   Distance Learning System)

Appendix-14

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

20

The aforesaid “norms and standards” were notified by NCTE Regulations 2002  

and  retained  in  the  NCTE  Regulations,  2005.   Appendix-7  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 revision of Secondary Teacher Education Programme  

leading  to  B.Ed.  Degree  Course  (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 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 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  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 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 Teachers Education Programme,  

21

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  Course  after  notification  of  Regulations  dated  27 th  

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.  

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 that  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 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 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 negative against the appellants.  

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’  

22

below Regulation 3 of amended Regulations 2006, has not been taken away  

nor  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  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.

……………………………………………….J.      ( R. V. RAVEENDRAN )

………………………………………………J.             ( A.K. PATNAIK)

……………………………………………….J.                ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER  12, 2011.

23