The court’s ruling emphasises the need for institutions to prioritise academic quality and stability over cost-cutting measures

In a recent landmark ruling, the Honourable Supreme Court has expressed its deep concern and disapproval over the pervasive practice of educational institutions, particularly National Law Universities, relying solely on contractual teaching staff. In a case involving the National Law University in Jodhpur, the apex court has underscored that this practice is not only unacceptable but also detrimental to the pursuit of academic excellence.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, unequivocally stated that it is “unacceptable and undesirable” for an educational institution to depend exclusively on contractual teaching staff. The judgment reflects a growing concern over the continuous influx and outflow of teaching personnel due to the prevalence of contractual employment, which undermines the stability and quality of education imparted by these institutions.
The National Law University in Jodhpur came under the scrutiny of the court, as it was revealed that the institution primarily employs teaching staff on a contractual basis, even though the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations limit contractual staff in higher education institutions to not exceed 10 percent. The court expressed astonishment that this practice persisted despite recent amendments proposing 50 percent permanent staff, which had yet to be implemented.
The National Law University in Jodhpur, renowned as a pioneer in legal education within India, currently lacks a Vice Chancellor, and even the position of Registrar is reportedly filled on a contractual basis. The court, while acknowledging these administrative shortcomings, insisted that the responsibility to rectify this situation lies with the institution itself.
The court’s ruling carries significant implications for the entire landscape of Indian higher education, emphasising the need for institutions to prioritise academic quality and stability over cost-cutting measures. It signals a crucial shift towards ensuring that educational institutions uphold the highest standards of teaching and learning.
The prevailing argument that contractual staff offers financial advantages to institutions cannot outweigh the importance of having a stable, experienced, and dedicated teaching faculty. The issue extends beyond financial considerations; it encompasses the very essence of educational institutions as centres of excellence. In this context, the Supreme Court has rightfully called for a reevaluation of the prevalent practice.
The Supreme Court’s stance resonates with the belief that educational institutions, especially those specialising in legal education, should stand as beacons of excellence. These institutions play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the legal profession, and their academic rigour and stability are paramount.
It is essential to acknowledge that contractual teaching staff often face precarious employment conditions, which can negatively impact their morale, commitment, and overall job satisfaction. These factors can, in turn, influence the quality of education delivered to students. The Supreme Court’s call for reform recognises this issue and underscores the importance of providing a conducive environment for teaching professionals.
In recent years, Indian higher education has seen a proliferation of educational institutions, including National Law Universities, to cater to the growing demand for specialised education. However, the emphasis on quality over quantity must not be forgotten. A focus on contractual staff as a means of cost-saving might seem attractive in the short term, but it jeopardises the long-term goals of these institutions.
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a wake-up call for all educational institutions in India. It reminds them of their primary mission: to impart high-quality education and foster an environment conducive to research and learning. Relying excessively on contractual teaching staff undermines this mission and hinders the development of these institutions as centres of excellence.
Moreover, the court’s decision highlights the need for regulatory bodies, such as the University Grants Commission, to play a proactive role in ensuring that educational institutions adhere to established guidelines. The UGC’s regulations exist to maintain the quality and standards of higher education in India, and their effective implementation is vital for upholding the integrity of the education system.
While the National Law University in Jodhpur has been at the centre of this debate, it is crucial to recognise that this issue is not unique to one institution. Many educational institutions across India employ contractual teaching staff as a cost-saving measure. The Supreme Court’s ruling should serve as a precedent and catalyst for change across the educational landscape.
The Supreme Court’s decision to deplore the over-reliance on contractual teaching staff in educational institutions, particularly National Law Universities, is a significant step towards ensuring the excellence and stability of higher education in India. It calls for a reevaluation of priorities, emphasising the importance of academic quality over cost-saving measures. Educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and policymakers must heed this call to preserve the integrity and standards of the country’s education system. The pursuit of excellence in education should remain uncompromised, for it is the foundation upon which a brighter future is built.
Feedback at [email protected]

Shakeel Bin Ali