SC Turns Amity Dispute Into Nationwide Audit of Private Universities

From One Student’s Petition to a System-Wide Review

What began as a personal grievance by a 23-year-old student against Amity University, Noida has now expanded into one of the most sweeping judicial examinations of India’s private higher education sector. Hearing a plea by Ayesha Jain (earlier Khushi Jain), who alleged harassment after legally changing her name, the Supreme Court has decided to use the case as a springboard to examine how private and deemed-to-be universities function across the country.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N V Anjaria has directed the Union government, all State and Union Territory governments, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file detailed affidavits explaining the creation, regulation and oversight of every such institution operating in India.

The Trigger: Harassment Allegations Against Amity University

In her petition, the student alleged that despite completing the legal process of changing her name and publishing it in the Gazette of India, Amity University refused to update her records. She claimed she was barred from attending classes, allegedly prevented from sitting for examinations and subjected to remarks about her choice of name and religion.

The matter escalated during earlier hearings, where the Court expressed displeasure with the university’s approach and summoned senior functionaries of the trust that runs Amity. Instead of treating the dispute as a narrow, institution-specific issue, the Bench concluded that the case exposed deeper questions about how private universities exercise power over students and how effectively they are monitored.

What the Supreme Court Has Asked: Hard Questions for Governments and UGC

In its latest directions, the Court has sought a comprehensive “foundational dossier” from the highest levels of government. Affidavits are to be filed by the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretaries of every State/UT, along with the Chairman of UGC, personally affirming the information submitted.

The Court has asked authorities to clarify, for each private or deemed university:

• The legal basis and statutes under which it was established.
• The identity of founding trusts, societies or sponsoring bodies, and who effectively controls them.
• Whether land was allotted on concessional terms, and what tax, financial or administrative benefits were granted.
• How governing bodies, boards of management and key decision-making structures are constituted.
• What mechanisms exist for regulatory oversight, inspections and audits.
• What systems are in place for grievance redressal for students and staff.
• Whether declared “no-profit, no-loss” models are consistent with how surplus funds are actually used.

The Bench has also warned that any attempt to mislead the Court or obscure information in these affidavits will be taken seriously, signalling that this is more than a routine data-collection exercise.

Is It a University or a Corporate Franchise? The Core Concern

The Court’s questions mirror a growing public debate about whether some private universities function more as education-branded corporate franchises than as academic institutions operating in public interest. In particular, the Bench has shown interest in understanding:

• How many institutions are directly run by charitable or educational trusts versus complex holding structures.
• Whether boards include independent academics and public representatives, or are dominated by family members or business associates.
• How fee structures, hostel charges and ancillary collections are determined and disclosed.
• Whether recruitment and pay practices for faculty and staff meet statutory and labour standards.

In simple terms, the Court appears to be asking: who really runs these universities, in whose interest, and under what level of public accountability?

Implications for Students, Parents and Faculty

For millions of students and parents who rely on private universities for professional degrees, the Court’s intervention could have far-reaching consequences. A nationwide audit of legal status, governance and oversight mechanisms may:

• Force institutions to clarify the recognition and validity of their degrees and programmes.
• Strengthen protections related to fee disputes, academic discrimination and arbitrary disciplinary action.
• Lead to more transparent disclosure of accreditation status, infrastructure norms and faculty credentials.
• Trigger stricter scrutiny of marketing claims made in advertisements, brochures and counselling sessions.

Faculty and staff, too, may see knock-on effects, particularly if the Court’s directions prompt governments and regulators to crack down on opaque employment practices or persistent violations of regulatory guidelines.

What Private Universities Need to Prepare For

For private and deemed-to-be universities, the message is clear: the era of minimal transparency is drawing to a close. With the Supreme Court now demanding answers directly from top government and regulatory authorities, institutions can expect:

• Renewed compliance checks on their founding documents, trust deeds and statutes.
• Closer review of related-party transactions, including how land, services and contracts are awarded.
• Questions about how surpluses are applied—towards genuine academic development or routed to connected entities.
• Greater emphasis on documented, accessible student grievance systems that meet minimum due-process standards.

The Court has fixed the next hearing for January 8, 2026, giving governments and regulators limited time to assemble extensive data. Private universities would be well advised to organise their own documentation, audit trails and policy frameworks before that process begins to surface gaps.

Shunyatax Global Insight: Governance, Documentation and Risk

At Shunyatax Global, this development is a reminder that higher education is no longer shielded from the broader expectations of corporate-style governance, transparency and risk management. Whether an institution is run by a trust, society or company-style structure, its ability to withstand regulatory and judicial scrutiny depends heavily on the quality of its documentation and internal controls.

For universities and educational groups, this is an important moment to:

• Review foundational documents, approvals and recognition orders for completeness and consistency.
• Map out clear governance hierarchies, with written roles and responsibilities for boards and key officers.
• Strengthen compliance frameworks related to UGC norms, state legislation, labour law and fee regulations.
• Establish or upgrade formal grievance redressal mechanisms for students and staff, with documented procedures and timelines.

For students and parents, the Supreme Court’s intervention is a signal to pay closer attention to the legal and regulatory backing of the institutions they choose, not just branding and infrastructure.

To understand how robust governance, compliance and documentation can reduce legal and regulatory risk for educational institutions, visit Shunyatax Global Services. Shunyatax Global provides advisory support across regulatory mapping, compliance frameworks and risk governance for entities operating in complex, highly scrutinised sectors like higher education.