The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Courts with his challenge to the Sikkim Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2025 and the Uttarakhand Private Universities Act, 2023, observing that the two enactments were passed by different State legislatures and cannot be challenged together merely because similar constitutional grounds have been raised.

The PIL filed by Prof. B.P. Maithani challenges the constitutional validity of the Sikkim Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2025 and the Uttarakhand Private Universities Act, 2023, as amended in 2024. The petitioner contends that the State enactments are repugnant to the central regulatory framework, particularly the University Grants Commission Act, and has invoked Article 254 of the Constitution. The petition also raises questions concerning the legislative competence of the States and the regulatory control being exercised over private universities.

During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana questioned the petitioner’s attempt to challenge the two State laws in a single proceeding. It pointed out that the Sikkim and Uttarakhand legislations are separate enactments and have differences in their scope and provisions. It observed:

The petitioner submitted that both enactments substantially affect university autonomy and argued that there was “clear repugnancy under Article 254”, alleging that the State legislation had sidelined the UGC Act. Counsel also expressed concern that requiring separate proceedings before two High Courts could result in divergent findings.

The Bench, however, observed that the respective High Courts should first examine the challenges. It noted that this would enable the Supreme Court to have the benefit of the High Courts’ views before examining the issue, if the matter subsequently reaches it.The Bench also sought to allay the petitioner’s concern about delay if the matter was taken to the High Courts, observing, “Both the High Courts, fortunately, are not so overburdened as the Supreme Court.”

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition while clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the constitutional challenges and said that the petitioner could approach the jurisdictional High Courts of Sikkim and Uttarakhand to challenge the respective statutes.