Education being a concurrent subject has led to regulatory fragmentation between the Centre and States, especially in private university governance. Discuss with reference to recent judicial interventions.

Education was shifted from the State List to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, creating shared jurisdiction in which the Centre sets standards while States create institutions. In private university governance, this shared space has produced overlapping authority without unified accountability.

Structural roots of fragmentation

• Divided legal basis: State private universities are created by Acts of State legislatures and governed by those Acts, while deemed-to-be universities are declared by the Centre under Section 3, UGC Act, 1956 [1][2].
• Regulatory arbitrage: with each State legislating its own entry norms, promoters can choose the most permissive jurisdiction; India now hosts over 450 private universities concentrated in a few States.
• Enforcement gap: the UGC's 2003 Private Universities Regulations allow inspection and communication of deficiencies, but the Commission cannot de-recognise a university created by a State Act — it can only recommend action [1][3].

Consequences for governance

• Weak fee and quality oversight despite the bar on commercialisation of education by deemed universities [4]; complaints of arbitrary fee hikes, expulsions and harassment persist.
• Land at concessional rates and tax concessions granted by States without matching accountability for academic outcomes.
• A parliamentary committee has flagged uneven standards, accreditation and examination integrity across private and deemed institutions [3].

Recent judicial interventions

• The Supreme Court's ongoing inquiry into private universities — arising from a student's petition against a deemed university — directed the Union Cabinet Secretary and State Chief Secretaries to personally affirm affidavits on the legal framework and concessions behind each institution, and pulled up the Centre for filing through the Higher Education Secretary instead [5].
• The Court clarified the exercise is "not a witch-hunt", signalling systemic reform rather than punitive action [5].

Judicial intervention has usefully exposed the accountability vacuum, but courts cannot substitute for legislation. Operationalising the Higher Education Commission of India envisaged by NEP 2020, with a "light but tight" framework, harmonised State entry norms and transparent fee regulation, would convert concurrency from a source of fragmentation into genuine cooperative federalism in education [3][6].