C. Chellamuthu V. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Education and The Member Secretary, National Board of Accreditation

WP(MD)/6086/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Writ Petition filed by C. Chellamuthu against the Union of India and the National Board of Accreditation, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the publication of the NIRF rankings after verifying the data submitted by institutions with government records. The petitioner argued that the NIRF rankings do not reflect the genuine academic excellence of institutions and are based on potentially manipulated data. The respondents contended that a scientific method prescribed by an expert body is followed in the ranking process. The court found the petition premature due to the lack of comparative data and suggested that the petitioner could seek legal recourse post-publication of the rankings if necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799948 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A R L SUNDARESAN; K GOVINDARAJAN; AMRITH BARGHAV
• Assessee Lawyers: A L GANDHIMATHI
• Keywords: Accountability; Transparency; Writ of Mandamus; NIRF ranking; Data verification

Judgement Text

"W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.4472 of 2025 C.Chellamuthu ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Education, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Member Secretary, National Board of Accreditation NBCC Place, East Tower, 4th Floor Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein publish the NIRF ranking after comparing and verifying the datas submitted by institutions with the datas in Government records, viz., students 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 admission approval, income tax audited statements of account etc., disclose the method of calculation of marks for public perception. For Petitioner : M/s.AL.Gandhimathi Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Mahadevan For R – 1 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India For R – 2 : Amrith Barghav ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.SRIMATHY, J.) The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to publish the NIRF ranking after comparing and verifying the data submitted by institutions with the data available in Government records, viz., student admission approvals, income tax audited statements of account, etc., and to disclose the method of calculation of marks for public perception. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 2.According to the petitioner, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (hereinafter referred to as 'NIRF') was launched by the second respondent on the directions of the first respondent for evaluating the excellence of Higher Education Institutions in India. The second respondent publishes the NIRF rankings based on methodologies that are not disclosed, and the same do not reflect the genuine academic excellence of the institutions. The evaluation is alleged to be flawed, and rankings are awarded based on data received from the institutions. It is further alleged that the data submitted are manipulated by the NIRF authorities. According to the petitioner, there is no transparency or accountability regarding the data submitted by the institutions. Instead of collecting data from Government websites, institutions are invited to submit data online, and malpractices are predominantly committed by private institutions. Seeking appropriate action from the respondents in this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.11.2024, which did not evoke any response. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent, submitted 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 that there is a separate scientific method that is being followed and that the method is prescribed by an expert body. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5.Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Writ Petition is premature. Further, there is no data before this Court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved after the publication of the list, he may challenge the same along with evidence in the manner known to law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [J.N.B.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.] 25.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 To 1.The Secretary to Government, Represented by the Union of India, Ministry of Education, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Member Secretary, National Board of Accreditation NBCC Place, East Tower, 4th Floor Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 J.NISHA BANU , J. and S.SRIMATHY, J. ps ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.6086 of 2025 DATED : 25.04.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis "