Courts Cannot Cripple Education Regulators Through Pedantic Review: Supreme Court Upholds NCTE’s Power to Demand Annual Performance Appraisal Reports

Case Name: National Council for Teacher Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Others

Date of Judgment: 3 September 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 953

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that the National Council for Teacher Education and its Executive Committee possess statutory authority to require recognised Teacher Education Institutions to submit annual Performance Appraisal Reports. This power is expressly traceable to Section 12(k) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, which authorises the Council to evolve a suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability upon recognised institutions.

The Executive Committee is the executive arm through which the Council implements its statutory decisions. Once the Council deliberated upon and approved the introduction of the Performance Appraisal Report mechanism, the Member Secretary of the Executive Committee was competent to issue the public notice and prescribe the necessary online proforma for its implementation. Separate delegation of every procedural or operational detail was unnecessary.

The Court further held that a statutory regulator possesses incidental and ancillary powers necessary to discharge its expressly assigned functions effectively. Therefore, even in the absence of specific statutory language authorising every component of the appraisal process, NCTE could require institutions under its regulatory control to submit performance information and pay a reasonable processing fee.

While reviewing the actions of a statutory regulator, constitutional courts must determine whether the authority violated a mandatory provision or transgressed the powers vested in it. Courts should not adopt a narrow, technical or pedantic approach that prevents a regulator from effectively discharging its statutory responsibilities. Judicial review includes a positive duty to ensure that regulators exercise their powers efficiently, effectively and accountably.

Summary: The National Council for Teacher Education issued a public notice dated 22 September 2019 requiring all recognised Teacher Education Institutions to submit an annual Performance Appraisal Report through an online portal for the academic year 2018–2019. Central and State Government institutions were required to pay ₹5,000, while institutions falling within other categories were required to pay ₹15,000. The notice stated that failure to submit the report would attract action under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act.

The Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and other Teacher Education Institutions challenged the notice. They principally contended that the Council itself, and not the Member Secretary or Executive Committee, could introduce a performance appraisal system. According to them, the prescribed proforma had neither been specifically placed before nor approved by the Council, and the Council’s statutory function under Section 12(k) had not been delegated to the Member Secretary under Section 27 of the Act.

A learned Single Judge dismissed their challenge. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, however, allowed the appeal and set aside the public notice. It held that although the Council had discussed the introduction of a Performance Appraisal Report, there was no material showing that the particular proforma uploaded with the notice had been approved by the Council. It further found no specific delegation authorising the Member Secretary to evolve or implement the appraisal system. The High Court consequently declared the notice illegal and unsustainable.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. It began by connecting teacher education with the fundamental right to free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21A of the Constitution. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 recognises that the effectiveness of a child’s right to education depends upon the availability of properly qualified and trained teachers. NCTE, as the academic and regulatory authority under the statutory framework, therefore performs an essential role in ensuring the quality of teacher education throughout the country.

The Court identified Teacher Education Institutions as an additional category of duty-bearers responsible for fulfilling the constitutional promise of elementary education. Such institutions are obligated to properly educate and train persons who will teach at the pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior-secondary levels. Their responsibility extends to compliance with the conditions of recognition and the norms governing teacher-training programmes.

NCTE was identified as another, and perhaps the most important, duty-bearer in this framework. It is entrusted with achieving the planned and coordinated development of teacher education and ensuring that recognised institutions function effectively, efficiently and with integrity. The Council, its Executive Committee and Regional Committees must maintain standards and enforce accountability across teacher-training institutions.

Section 12 of the NCTE Act confers broad regulatory functions upon the Council, including conducting surveys, making recommendations to governments and universities, coordinating and monitoring teacher education, prescribing qualifications and admission standards, framing guidelines for recognised institutions and developing performance appraisal mechanisms. Section 19 provides for the Executive Committee, which performs functions assigned to it by the Council or prescribed through regulations.

The dispute originated from NCTE’s earlier proposal to require annual renewal of recognition. That proposal led to extensive litigation by Teacher Education Institutions across several High Courts. Consequently, at its 48th General Body meeting held on 5 February 2019, the Council reconsidered the matter and decided to replace annual renewal with an annual Performance Appraisal Report supported by a Management Information System.

The General Body approved the proposal and authorised NCTE to proceed through a proforma to be developed for that purpose. The Supreme Court held that this resolution supplied ample authority for the Executive Committee to operationalise the Council’s decision. The Member Secretary did not independently create a new regulatory regime; he merely issued the notice necessary to implement the policy already considered and approved by the Council.

The Court found it difficult to accept that a statutory body charged with maintaining teacher-education standards could be restrained from calling for basic performance information from the institutions it regulated. The power to demand such information was directly available under Section 12(k). Additionally, the ability to obtain performance reports was necessarily incidental to NCTE’s responsibility to monitor recognised institutions, enforce accountability and take corrective action where standards were not maintained.

The payment prescribed in the public notice was characterised as a processing fee rather than an unauthorised tax. The power to charge such a fee was incidental and ancillary to the regulator’s authority to establish and administer the appraisal mechanism.

The Supreme Court gave particular emphasis to accountability as an essential principle of administrative law. It identified responsibility, answerability and enforceability as its three constituent dimensions. Responsibility involves identifying the duties and performance obligations of an institution; answerability requires explanations and reasoned decision-making; and enforceability permits corrective action where those duties are neglected.

According to the Court, meaningful judicial review of NCTE’s administrative action would itself become difficult if the regulator lacked accurate performance information regarding recognised institutions. Requiring annual appraisal reports therefore strengthened transparency, monitoring and accountability rather than exceeding the Council’s jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that judicial review is not confined to restraining public authorities from exercising nonexistent powers. Constitutional courts also have a positive responsibility to ensure that statutory bodies and regulators exercise the powers legally entrusted to them in an effective, efficient and accountable manner. A technical interpretation that unnecessarily disables a regulator from performing its statutory functions defeats rather than advances the rule of law.

Although NCTE informed the Court that procedural and technical concerns relating to the 2019 notice had subsequently been rectified in its 53rd meeting, the Supreme Court considered it necessary to decide the legal issue so that the scope of statutory regulatory powers remained clear.

Decision: It declared the public notice dated 22 September 2019 to be legal and valid and affirmed that NCTE and its Executive Committee were competent to require recognised Teacher Education Institutions to upload annual Performance Appraisal Reports.