Naseema Institute of Speech and Hearing v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2026WP/12379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Displaced from pending connected matter, Court set aside order by Rehabilitation Council of India withdrawing BASLP course approval as it exceeded powers under Section 17. Interim stay remains operational; inspection for 2026-27 permitted separately, with liberty to Council to act on results.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.08.2024 withdrawing approval set aside; Institute permitted to continue activities; liberty reserved to 2nd respondent to act on inspection results; interim stay remains.

Naseema Institute of Speech and Hearing Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12379 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

NASEEMA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING, A SPEECH AND HEARING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AFFILIATED TO BENGALURU UNIVERSITY AND APPROVED BY REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA (RCI) AND RUN BY M/S. U T NASEEMA FAREED MEMORIAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST AT SITE NO.02, KNOWLEDGE STREET, BANASHANKARI VI STAGE, BEHIND R V COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA, BENGALURU 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS: CHAIRMAN SHRI. U T ZULFIKAR ALI

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RAVI V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (DIVYANGJAN),

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶19

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶20

5TH FLOOR, ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003.

¶21

THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA (RCI), A STATUTORY BODY OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (DIVYANGJAN), NO.B-22, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 016, REP. BY ITS: CHAIRPERSON.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RECOGNITION) REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA (RCI), NO.B-22, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

¶23

THE MEMBER SECRETARY, REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA (RCI), NO. B-22, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 016.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY MS. NAYANA TARA B.G., CGC FOR R1; SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE LETTER F. NO.1732/B.A.S.L.P/KK026/RCI-8119 DATED 16.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN WHICH IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.,

¶27

3 -

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶30

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This matter is de-linked from the connected matters

¶35

and separate order is passed. Office to show the name of learned counsel, Sri. Ravi V., as representing the petitioner.

¶36

This petition is filed by the Institute for speech and hearing, calling in question the validity of the communication/order at Annexure-A passed by the 2nd respondent.

¶37

In terms of the order at Annexure-A issued by the 2nd respondent, the approval granted to the petitioner

¶38

- institute for conduct of Bachelor in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (BASLP) course has been withdrawn for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of

¶39

4 -

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶42

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶43

mandamus to direct respondents No.2 to 4 to consider reply dated 26.04.2024 made out by the petitioner and take appropriate steps regarding approval.

¶44

At the outset, it is noticed that this Court by order dated 28.07.2025 had stayed the operation of Annexure-A and all further proceedings.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the interim order passed, the institute has continued with its activities including admissions. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent had no power to withdraw the approval by virtue of the power conferred under Section 17 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent upon inspection could only make representation to the Central Government regarding its findings upon inspection and it is the Central Government that may further issue necessary communication to the University, while calling upon an explanation.

¶46

5 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶49

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶50

Upon receipt of such explanation, the Central Government, after making further enquiry, may pass orders regarding the approval. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order at Annexure-A is one without jurisdiction.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that while it could be conceded that they have no power to cancel an approval already granted, however the right to grant approval vests with the authority.

¶52

In light of the order at Annexure-A which is in-effect withdrawal of approval being contrary to the power conferred under Section 17, the order at Annexure-A by respondent No.2 is one without jurisdiction and is set aside.

¶53

While it is noticed that for the academic year 2026-27, this Court while disposing of W.P.No.24315/2026 has permitted the 2nd respondent to conduct an inspection. It is open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps upon the findings in the inspection.

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:49073 WP No. 12379 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CNR: KAHC010269032025

¶57

Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part and

¶58

the order at Annexure-A is set aside, while liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to take appropriate action upon the results of the inspection. All contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶59

Needless to state that the activities of the

¶60

petitioner having been protected under an interim order, the interest of the students ought not to be jeopardized for the period during which time is spent before this Court.

¶61

Needless to state, respondent No.2 upon inspection is at liberty to call upon the institution to adhere to the requisite standards.

¶62

Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part .

¶63

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶64

MCR

Naseema Institute of Speech and Hearing v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseema Institute of Speech and Hearing v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases