Introduction:

In a striking development, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has intervened suo motu after a media report exposed an alarming misuse of public funds in Maharashtra’s education sector. The case titled Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra [SMPIL 3 of 2025] revolves around a news item published by the Times of India on July 12, 2025, revealing that nearly 300 junior colleges across the state have zero student enrollment, yet continue to receive government grants to pay their staff salaries amounting to crores of rupees annually. The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and Sachin Deshmukh expressed deep shock over this revelation, terming it a glaring example of mismanagement and wastage of taxpayer money. The Court emphasized that despite existing statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, the Secondary School Code, and the Right to Education Act, 2009, such institutions have managed to survive without accountability, raising serious questions about governance. To ensure a comprehensive probe and corrective measures, the Court appointed Advocate Rahul Ghuge as Amicus Curiae and directed the State to cooperate fully in providing necessary information. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 4, 2025.

Arguments and Concerns Highlighted by the Court:

Since the proceedings were initiated suo motu, the Court primarily articulated its concerns through the observations recorded in the order. Justice Sambre and Justice Deshmukh noted that the facts disclosed in the Times of India report reveal systemic flaws in the administration of educational grants and regulatory oversight. The bench observed that public money allocated to educational development is being siphoned off through “ghost colleges” that serve no academic purpose but function as employment hubs for staff receiving salaries without teaching a single student.

The Court emphasized that such a scenario indicates both financial impropriety and policy failure, as the primary purpose of these grants—ensuring access to quality education—is being defeated. The judges further noted that the State Government’s acknowledgment of this issue, as reflected in the news report, aggravates the seriousness of the matter and necessitates immediate judicial scrutiny. The bench remarked:

 “The news item speaks of 300 colleges in Maharashtra getting grants towards the salary of the staff; however, not a single student has taken admission in them. This shocking revelation speaks not only of wastage of public money but also of mismanagement of the educational institutions by their managements.”

Key Legal Framework Referenced:

The Court underlined that existing statutes, such as the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1981, the Secondary School Code, and the Right to Education Act, 2009, provide mechanisms to address scenarios where institutions fail to attract adequate student enrollment. These provisions empower the authorities to take remedial measures, including suspension of grants, rationalization of staff, or closure of non-performing institutions. The fact that these provisions have not been effectively enforced suggests administrative apathy and possibly collusion, warranting judicial intervention.

Appointment of Amicus Curiae and Future Course:

To ensure the matter is comprehensively addressed, the bench appointed Advocate Rahul Ghuge as Amicus Curiae, directing him to prepare an appropriate petition within two weeks that encapsulates the legal and factual dimensions of the issue. The Court also sought active cooperation from the State Government, represented by Senior Advocate and Government Pleader D.V. Chauhan, to provide all necessary information and assist the Amicus in framing the petition. The bench observed that before issuing final directions, it must have complete clarity on the number of such colleges, quantum of grants disbursed, remedial steps—if any—taken by the authorities, and the legal measures required to prevent recurrence. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to August 4, 2025, for further hearing.

Implications of the Court’s Intervention:

This suo motu action by the Bombay High Court underscores the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding public resources and ensuring accountability in governance. If left unchecked, the practice of funding ghost colleges undermines not only the financial integrity of the State but also the very objective of educational policies aimed at expanding access and improving quality. The Court’s intervention may pave the way for sweeping reforms in grant allocation, including the introduction of stricter monitoring mechanisms, mandatory enrollment thresholds for eligibility, and digital auditing systems to track student attendance and staff accountability. It also signals a warning to educational managements engaging in such malpractices that judicial oversight will not tolerate the misuse of public funds under the guise of educational development.

Judicial Observations on Governance and Accountability:

The bench’s remarks reflect a broader concern about systemic inefficiency and the absence of effective checks within the educational administration. The Court’s insistence on obtaining detailed information about the functioning of these institutions and the remedial actions taken by the State suggests a likely shift towards structured regulatory compliance and penal consequences for erring institutions. The reference to statutory frameworks like the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and the Right to Education Act also reaffirms the principle that statutory duties cannot be reduced to mere formalities and must be enforced in letter and spirit.

Next Steps:

The upcoming hearing on August 4 will likely witness the submission of a detailed report by the Amicus Curiae and the State Government’s response outlining corrective measures. The Court may consider issuing interim guidelines to freeze further grants to such non-functional colleges and initiate recovery proceedings where fraudulent claims are established. Additionally, the Court may direct the formation of a high-powered committee comprising educationists, auditors, and government officials to restructure the grant disbursement process.