Does Immunity U/S 14 Of South Asian University Act Bar Courts From Exercising Writ Jurisdiction Over It? Delhi HC To Examine

The division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela was hearing letter patent appeals (“LPA”) arising out of the impugned judgment, wherein the single judge had observed that SAU, by virtue of the immunity provided u/s 14 of the SAU Act 2008, does not encompass in itself the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Section 14 of the SAU Act 2008 provides for certain privileges and immunities to the President and the Academic Staff of the university. Under Section 14 of the Act, the University, the President, and the Academic Staff shall have the privileges and immunities as notified by the Central Government u/s 3 of the 1947 Act. The Central Government, exercising power under the said Act, had issued a notification dated 15.01.2009, wherein certain provisions of the 1947 Act were applied to the officials of SAU.

It was SAU's case that the immunities conferred by virtue of Section 14 of the SAU Act 2008, read with Section 3 and the Schedule appended to the 1947 Act, bar any court proceedings, including writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Furthermore, concerning the resolution of any dispute, Section 26 does provide for the remedy of arbitration.

The appellants and the writ petitioners argued that the conferred immunity is with respect to property, funds and assets of the university and not related to the dispute concerning the employment of the faculty. The SAU owes its existence to a statute, even though the agreement between the members of the SAARC nations was only a precursor to the University Act. Qua the immunities conferred u/s 14 of the SAU Act, even an arbitral award cannot be executed.

The bench observed that the question of law involved in the LPAs concerns the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This, in essence, has an impact on the power of judicial review, which is one of the facets of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Considering the importance of the questions of law involved, the bench appointed Senior Advocate Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Senior Advocate Mr. Rajshekhar Rao as amicus curiae. The bench listed the matter for hearing on 18.11.2025.