The Supreme Court of India has affirmed the regulatory authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to require recognised Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) to submit annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs). In The National Council for Teacher Education v. Association of NCTE Approved Colleges Trust and Others, 2026 INSC 953, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which had invalidated the NCTE’s 2019 Public Notice mandating the filing of PARs.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe on September 3, 2026, is significant not merely for teacher education but for the broader principles governing the powers of statutory regulators. The Supreme Court held that regulatory bodies possess not only powers expressly conferred by statute but also incidental and ancillary powers necessary for effectively discharging their statutory responsibilities.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose from a Public Notice dated September 22, 2019, issued by the Member Secretary of the Executive Committee of the NCTE. Through the notice, all Teacher Education Institutions running NCTE-recognised courses were required to submit an annual Performance Appraisal Report online.
The notice stated that submission of the PAR was one of the conditions of recognition and referred specifically to Sections 12(j) and 12(k) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. Section 12(j) empowers the Council to periodically examine and review the implementation of norms, guidelines and standards, while Section 12(k) empowers it to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability upon recognised institutions.
For the academic year 2018-19, the notice required Central and State Government institutions to pay ₹5,000 per institution, irrespective of the number of courses, while other categories of institutions were required to pay ₹15,000 per institution. The filing period was fixed from September 23, 2019 to December 31, 2019, and non-submission could attract action under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act.
Teacher Education Institutions challenged this requirement before the Delhi High Court.
What Did the Delhi High Court Hold?
The principal objection was not simply that NCTE lacked regulatory authority over recognised institutions. Rather, the dispute concerned whether the particular Performance Appraisal Report mechanism had been validly authorised and implemented.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court found that although the NCTE Council had discussed the requirement of PARs and the creation of a Management Information System, there was no material demonstrating that the specific proforma uploaded along with the impugned notice had been placed before and approved by the Council.
The High Court also observed that there was nothing on record to establish that the Council’s function under Section 12(k) of evolving a suitable performance appraisal system had been delegated to the Member Secretary under Section 27 of the NCTE Act.
Consequently, it held that the notice requiring TEIs to annually file PARs was unsustainable and quashed it. The High Court, however, did not decide whether the ₹5,000 and ₹15,000 payments demanded along with the PAR constituted a fee or a tax.
The NCTE carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Role of NCTE in Teacher Education
The Supreme Court approached the controversy by examining the larger statutory purpose of the NCTE Act, 1993, rather than considering the Public Notice in isolation.
The Act was enacted for achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards.
Under Section 2(l), “teacher education” encompasses programmes of education, research or training for equipping persons to teach at the pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages. It also includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education.
More importantly, Section 12 imposes upon the Council the primary responsibility of taking such steps as it considers appropriate for ensuring planned and coordinated development and determination and maintenance of standards in teacher education.
Its functions include conducting surveys, making recommendations concerning teacher education programmes, coordinating and monitoring teacher education, framing guidelines concerning qualifications and eligibility, laying down guidelines for recognised institutions and, crucially, evolving suitable performance appraisal systems for enforcing accountability.
Teacher Education and the Fundamental Right to Education
An important feature of the judgment is the Court’s connection between regulation of teacher education and the constitutional guarantee of education.
Article 21A of the Constitution guarantees free and compulsory education to children between six and fourteen years of age. Parliament subsequently enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Section 23 of the RTE Act provides that persons possessing minimum qualifications laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government are eligible for appointment as teachers. The NCTE is the academic authority contemplated for this purpose.
The Court therefore treated the effective functioning of teacher education institutions as having consequences beyond ordinary regulatory compliance. Quality teacher training directly affects the quality of teachers and, ultimately, children’s ability to meaningfully enjoy their constitutional right to education.
TEIs and NCTE as Constitutional Duty Bearers
The Supreme Court developed the concept of “duty bearers” in relation to the right to elementary education. Referring to Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Court recalled five recognised duty bearers: the appropriate Government, local authority, neighbouring school, parents or guardians, and elementary school teachers.
The Court went further in the present case and identified Teacher Education Institutions as the sixth duty bearer. Such institutions train and educate persons who will eventually undertake the crucial responsibility of teaching children. They are therefore required to obtain recognition and comply with the statutory framework under Sections 14 to 17 of the NCTE Act.
The NCTE itself was described as the seventh duty bearer. According to the Court, the Council has the responsibility to ensure planned and coordinated development of teacher education and to ensure that TEIs function effectively, efficiently and with integrity. The Court considered the responsibilities of the Council, Executive Committee and Regional Committees to be particularly significant within this framework.
This approach places regulation of teacher education within the wider constitutional objective of ensuring meaningful and quality elementary education.
Why Was the Performance Appraisal Report Introduced?
The PAR system did not emerge without prior deliberation. The Supreme Court examined the minutes of the 48th Meeting of the General Body of NCTE held on February 5, 2019. NCTE had earlier considered annual renewal of recognition of Teacher Education Institutions, but that proposal became embroiled in litigation before different High Courts.
The Council consequently considered an alternative mechanism. Instead of annual renewal of recognition, it proposed insisting upon Performance Appraisal Reports to establish a Management Information System (MIS).
The proposal expressly stated that PAR would substitute “Annual Renewal of Recognition”, that a proforma would be developed by NCTE and that PAR would form part of the conditions of recognition.
Significantly, the Council approved the proposal and authorised NCTE to proceed through a proforma to be developed for that purpose.
The Supreme Court therefore rejected the premise that the PAR requirement was simply an unauthorised initiative of the Member Secretary.
Executive Committee Could Implement NCTE’s Decision
Another important question was whether the Executive Committee and its Member Secretary could implement the decision.
Section 19 of the NCTE Act provides for constitution of the Executive Committee for discharging functions assigned to it by the Council or determined by regulations. The Supreme Court described the Executive Committee as the body which actually discharges the Council’s functions and as an important statutory institution responsible for ensuring implementation of the objectives of the NCTE Act.
After the Council approved the PAR proposal on February 5, 2019, the Executive Committee acted as its executive arm. The Member Secretary’s issuance of the September 22, 2019 Public Notice was therefore treated as implementation of the Council’s decision rather than an independent assumption of legislative or regulatory authority.
Section 12(k) Expressly Authorises Performance Appraisal
The central legal finding of the Supreme Court was unequivocal. The Court held that there was “ample empowerment” of both the Council and the Executive Committee to require annual Performance Appraisal Reports from institutions imparting teacher education.
The power was directly traceable to Section 12(k) of the NCTE Act, which permits the Council to:
“evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions”.
The Council had considered the issue, taken a policy decision and authorised its implementation through a formal proforma. The Executive Committee was thereafter required to carry forward that mandate.
Accordingly, when the Member Secretary issued the Public Notice requiring institutions conducting NCTE-recognised courses to file PARs, he was implementing the Council’s statutory mandate.
Regulators Also Possess Incidental and Ancillary Powers
Perhaps the most consequential part of the judgment extends beyond Section 12(k). The Supreme Court held that even in the absence of specific statutory empowerment, requiring Performance Appraisal Reports could constitute an incidental and ancillary regulatory measure necessary for performing the regulator’s statutory functions.
The Court noted that NCTE itself is subject to performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It was therefore natural and incidental for NCTE to require entities falling within its regulatory jurisdiction to furnish information through Performance Appraisal Reports.
This principle is significant for administrative law. A statute need not necessarily enumerate every procedural mechanism through which a regulator can obtain information, review compliance or enforce accountability. Where the measure bears a reasonable relationship with the statutory functions of the regulator, an incidental or ancillary power may sustain it.
That does not mean statutory regulators possess unlimited authority. Their actions must still remain connected with the purposes and functions assigned by the governing legislation. But courts should not render regulatory institutions ineffective by interpreting their statutory powers in an excessively restrictive manner.
Accountability as a Principle of Administrative Law
The Court placed considerable emphasis on accountability.
According to the judgment, accountability has three essential dimensions:
- Responsibility – identification of duties and performance obligations;
- Answerability – requirement of reasoned decision-making; and
- Enforceability – availability of corrective action where responsibility and accountability are lacking.
The Court explained that accountability permits action against institutions or officials for dereliction of duty and also facilitates improvement in policies and procedures.
Viewed from this perspective, a Performance Appraisal Report is not merely a bureaucratic formality. It provides the regulator with information necessary to examine whether recognised institutions continue to comply with standards and fulfil the obligations associated with their recognition.
Courts Should Not Take a Pedantic Approach to Regulatory Powers
The Supreme Court also laid down an important principle concerning judicial review of regulatory action. Constitutional courts undoubtedly have a duty to ensure that statutory authorities do not exercise powers that have not been conferred upon them. However, according to the Court, they also have a positive duty to ensure that regulators exercise their legitimate powers effectively, efficiently and accountably.
For this reason, courts should not adopt an excessively “technical or pedantic” approach while reviewing regulatory action.
This reasoning marks an important balance. Judicial review continues to protect institutions and individuals against ultra vires regulatory action, but statutory interpretation should not be so narrow that a regulator becomes incapable of performing the very functions Parliament entrusted to it.
Can NCTE Charge a Processing Fee for PAR?
The Public Notice also required TEIs to make payments while uploading their Performance Appraisal Reports. The Supreme Court treated the payment as a process fee and held that charging such a fee was also incidental and ancillary to the regulator’s powers.
The Court noted that procedural and technical issues relating to the Public Notice were subsequently rectified in NCTE’s 53rd meeting. Nevertheless, it considered it necessary to decide the legal issue so that there would be clarity regarding the powers and functions statutory regulators are expected to exercise.
Thus, the judgment recognises not only NCTE’s authority to obtain PARs but also its incidental authority to impose a process fee associated with that regulatory mechanism.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the September 22, 2019 Public Notice was legal and valid. It concluded that both the NCTE Council and its Executive Committee were within their jurisdiction in requiring Teacher Education Institutions to upload Performance Appraisal Reports.
Accordingly, the Court:
- allowed the NCTE’s appeal;
- set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated March 13, 2023 in LPA No. 190 of 2021;
- upheld the validity of the Public Notice; and
- made no order as to costs.
Significance of the Judgment
The decision has implications at two levels.
- For Teacher Education Institutions, it makes clear that recognition by NCTE entails continuing regulatory accountability. Recognition cannot be understood merely as a one-time permission to conduct teacher education programmes. NCTE can seek information and periodically assess recognised institutions through mechanisms such as Performance Appraisal Reports.
- The judgment has wider relevance for administrative and regulatory law. It recognises that statutory regulators must be given sufficient operational space to fulfil the objectives assigned to them by Parliament. Powers expressly conferred by legislation may carry with them incidental and ancillary powers reasonably necessary for their effective exercise.
At the same time, the Court’s reasoning remains anchored in statutory purpose. In the present case, the express language of Section 12(k), the Council’s deliberations, the statutory position of the Executive Committee and the overall purpose of the NCTE Act collectively supported the PAR requirement.
The decision therefore should not be understood as giving regulators unrestricted authority. Rather, it recognises that statutory powers must be interpreted functionally so that regulators can effectively discharge the responsibilities for which they were created.