The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a Public Notice issued by the Member Secretary of the NCTE's Executive Committee requiring Teacher Education Institutions to submit annual Performance Appraisal Reports with prescribed fees. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment which had quashed the notice on grounds of lack of delegation, ruling that the Executive Committee, as the Council's executive arm, was fully empowered to implement the Council's decision mandating PAR submission for accountability and management information systems.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, issued a Public Notice dated 22.09.2019 through its Member Secretary, Sanjay Awasthi. The notice mandated all Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) running NCTE-recognised courses to submit a Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) online for the academic year 2018-2019 through a designated portal. The notice prescribed fees of Rs. 5,000 per institution for Central and State Government institutions and Rs. 15,000 per institution for all other categories, regardless of the number of courses. The timeline for submission was 23.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 (midnight), with non-submission attracting action under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act.
Key Facts
- The NCTE was established on 17.08.1995 under the NCTE Act, 1993 to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education
- Section 12(k) of the NCTE Act empowers the Council to "evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions"
- Section 12(j) requires the Council to "examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council"
- The 48th Meeting of the General Body of the Council was held on 05.02.2019 where Agenda Item No. 3 considered PAR-linked renewal of recognition
- The Council noted that annual renewal of recognition (approved in the 46th Meeting on 28.03.2017) had become litigious with TEIs filing cases across High Courts
- The Council decided to substitute PAR for annual renewal and approved the agenda "as proposed authorising NCTE to proceed in the manner through a proforma to be developed by NCTE for this purpose"
- The Executive Committee, as the executive arm of the Council, implemented this decision through the Member Secretary's Public Notice
- The Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and others challenged the notice before the Delhi High Court
Procedural History
- 22.09.2019: Public Notice issued by Member Secretary, NCTE Executive Committee
- Date not specified: Writ petitions filed before Delhi High Court challenging the Public Notice
- Date not specified: Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
- Date not specified: Appeals filed before Division Bench of Delhi High Court (LPA No. 190 of 2021)
- 13.03.2023: Division Bench allowed appeals, quashed the Public Notice holding the proforma was not approved by the Council and no delegation to Member Secretary was shown under Section 27
- Date not specified: NCTE filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11756/2023 before Supreme Court
- 03.09.2026: Supreme Court pronounced judgment allowing the appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant NCTE sought setting aside of the Division Bench judgment dated 13.03.2023, declaration that the Public Notice dated 22.09.2019 is legal and valid, and affirmation of its regulatory power to mandate PAR submission from TEIs.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Executive Committee, through its Member Secretary, was empowered to issue the Public Notice mandating annual Performance Appraisal Reports from TEIs; (2) Whether the requirement of PAR submission with prescribed fees falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of the NCTE under the Act; (3) Whether the High Court erred in adopting a technical view requiring specific delegation under Section 27 for the proforma's approval.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (NCTE)
The NCTE contended that the Council's 48th General Body Meeting on 05.02.2019 had expressly approved the PAR requirement and authorised NCTE to proceed through a proforma to be developed by it. The Executive Committee, constituted under Section 19 as the Council's executive arm, was duty-bound to implement this decision. The power to evolve performance appraisal systems under Section 12(k) inherently includes the authority to prescribe the format and manner of submission. The Member Secretary's notice was merely an implementation measure. The fees were characterised as process fees, incidental to regulatory functions. The NCTE also submitted that a subsequent 53rd meeting had rectified procedural issues, but the Court should clarify the legal position.
For the Respondents (Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust)
The respondents argued that the Council alone could issue such a notice and the Minutes of the General Body Meeting showed no empowerment of the Executive Committee or Member Secretary to issue the Public Notice. The proforma attached to the notice was never placed before or approved by the Council. The function under Section 12(k) to evolve a performance appraisal system had not been delegated to the Member Secretary under Section 27. They contended the notice was ultra vires and arbitrary, and the fee imposition lacked statutory backing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by emphasising the constitutional significance of teacher education following the recognition of elementary education as a fundamental right under Article 21A and the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Referring to Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Court identified TEIs and the NCTE as critical "duty bearers" in the education framework.
The Court examined the statutory scheme: the Council under Section 12 has the primary duty to ensure planned development and maintenance of standards. Section 12(k) expressly empowers it to "evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions." The Executive Committee under Section 19 is constituted to discharge functions assigned by the Council or determined by regulations.
From the Minutes of the 48th Meeting, the Court found that the Council had deliberated on the PAR issue, noted the litigation around annual renewal, and "approved as proposed authorising NCTE to proceed in the manner through a proforma to be developed by NCTE for this purpose." The Executive Committee, as the executive arm, was authorised to implement this decision. The Member Secretary's notice was precisely this implementation.
The Court rejected the High Court's technical approach: "We fail to understand as to how a regulatory measure of a statutory body, empowered to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country could be restrained from calling upon the TEIs to file Performance Appraisal Report." It held that even without specific statutory empowerment, such regulatory measures are "incidental and ancillary to the duties and functions of a regulator." The Court drew an analogy with the CAG's performance audit of NCTE itself, making it natural for NCTE to require PARs from regulated entities.
The Court articulated three dimensions of accountability: responsibility (identification of duties), answerability (reasoned decision-making), and enforceability (corrective action). It cited Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI for the principle that accountability enables action against dereliction and improves procedures.
The Court emphasised that Constitutional courts have a "positive duty to ensure that Authorities, more particularly, the regulators do exercise their powers effectively, efficiently and in an accountable manner" and "cannot adopt a technical or a pedantic view of the action taken by the regulators." The fees were characterised as "process fee which is again an incidental and ancillary power that the regulator must have."
"The Public Notice issued by the Member Secretary of the Executive Committee is legal and valid and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in setting aside the said Public Notice. The Council as well as the Executive Committee is within its jurisdiction to call TEIs to upload Performance Appraisal Report."
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court Division Bench in LPA No. 190 of 2021 dated 13.03.2023, and declared the Public Notice dated 22.09.2019 legal and valid. The Court affirmed the NCTE and its Executive Committee's jurisdiction to require TEIs to upload Performance Appraisal Reports. No order as to costs was made.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regulatory Implementation Powers Are Broad
Statutory regulators' executive committees and member secretaries can implement council decisions without requiring fresh delegation for every operational step. The Court's ruling clarifies that once a policy decision is taken by the apex body (here, the Council's General Body), the executive arm is empowered to operationalise it through notices, proformas, and portals. Practitioners should note that challenges to such implementation on grounds of "lack of specific delegation" will face heightened scrutiny.
Accountability Measures Are Inherent to Regulation
- The power to demand performance data, audit reports, and compliance filings is incidental and ancillary to the core regulatory mandate
- Courts will not adopt a "technical or pedantic view" that hampers regulatory effectiveness
- Fee requirements for processing regulatory filings (characterised as "process fees") are upheld as inherent regulatory powers
Judicial Review Standard for Regulatory Actions
- The test is whether the authority has violated a mandatory provision or transgressed vested powers - not whether every procedural step was formally delegated
- Constitutional courts have a positive duty to ensure regulators exercise powers effectively
- Subsequent rectification of procedural issues (as noted in the 53rd meeting) does not moot the need for authoritative clarification of regulatory powers
