Regulators Need Room to Regulate: Supreme Court Upholds NCTE’s Annual Performance Appraisal Report for Teacher Education Colleges

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has upheld the NCTE’s Public Notice of 22 September 2019 requiring Teacher Education Institutions to file an annual Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) online with a fee. Reversing the Delhi High Court, it held that the power is traceable to Section 12(k) of the NCTE Act, that a regulator may in any case call for such information as an incidental measure, and that courts should not take a technical or pedantic view of regulatory action.

At its 48th General Body meeting on 5 February 2019, the Council decided to insist on an annual PAR in place of annual renewal of recognition and authorised the process through a proforma. On 22 September 2019 the Member Secretary issued a Public Notice requiring TEIs to file the PAR online by 31 December 2019, with a fee of Rs 5,000 for Central/State institutions and Rs 15,000 for others; non-submission would attract action under Section 17(1).

TEIs argued that only the Council could issue such a notice and that the Executive Committee had not been empowered. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (LPA No. 190 of 2021, 13.03.2023) quashed the notice, holding that the proforma was not approved and the Section 12(k) function was not validly delegated under Section 27.

The Key Question Before the Court

Did the NCTE and its Executive Committee have the power to require annual Performance Appraisal Reports, and how closely should courts review such regulatory measures?

Standard of Review and the Regulator’s Incidental Powers

The Court said that in reviewing a statutory regulator, “the approach must be to see whether the functioning of the authority is in violation of any mandatory provision” or beyond its powers, not to take a technical view. Reading the NCTE Act as a whole, it observed that the Executive Committee in practice discharges the Council’s functions, and the minutes showed the Council had considered the PAR under Section 12(k) and authorised implementation.

The Court added that “even without a specific empowerment under the statute, such a regulatory measure can always be incidental and ancillary”, noting the CAG’s audit of the NCTE and framing accountability as responsibility, answerability and enforceability. The payment was a process fee, an incidental regulatory power, and any procedural defect was later rectified at the 53rd meeting.

What the Court Actually Held

• The Council and Executive Committee were within jurisdiction to require TEIs to upload a PAR.
• The power is traceable to Section 12(k) and is in any event incidental to regulation.
• The fee is a process fee.
• The Delhi High Court judgment was set aside and the Public Notice dated 22.09.2019 held legal and valid.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It strengthens regulatory oversight of teacher education institutions.
• It cautions courts against pedantic review of a regulator’s internal procedure.
• It recognises incidental powers to gather information for accountability.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Institutions

• Treat PAR filing as a valid obligation with Section 17 consequences for default.
• Challenges based only on internal delegation defects are unlikely to succeed.

For Regulators

• Record decisions and authorisations clearly in minutes.
• Link information demands to statutory functions and accountability needs.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

An annual Performance Appraisal Report that TEIs must upload online, which replaced the idea of annual renewal of recognition.

The Court treated it as a process fee incidental to the regulator’s powers.

It was set aside and the 2019 Public Notice was upheld.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →