The Delhi High Court has held that the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) cannot retrospectively apply the new regulatory framework governing Clinical Psychology courses to students who had already enrolled under the earlier academic system with the legitimate expectation of pursuing an M.Phil. in Clinical Psychology and obtaining RCI registration.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that applying the new regime to students who were already pursuing B.A./B.Sc. in any discipline, M.A. in Psychology or Clinical Psychology or had completed M.A. (Clinical Psychology) in 2026 under the previous UGC framework would be arbitrary, unfair, inequitable and contrary to the principles of legitimate expectation. The Court held that such an approach would amount to retrospective deprivation of an existing academic and professional pathway.
The Court distinguished between students already covered under the earlier regulatory regime and those who would enter higher education after the implementation of the new framework. It held that while the revised policy could validly apply to future students joining after Class XII under the new academic structure, it could not be enforced against students who had already commenced their academic journey under the previous regime.
The High Court observed that despite its earlier order dated May 5, 2026, passed in Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor v. Union of India and connected proceedings, the UGC and the RCI had failed to take any meaningful steps to revive or continue the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) programme for students caught in the transition. Their inaction compelled the petitioners to approach the Court again seeking protection of their academic and professional rights.
Accordingly, the Court directed the UGC and the RCI to issue an appropriate clarification or public notice within four weeks stating that the new regulatory regime would not apply to students already pursuing B.A./B.Sc. in any discipline, M.A. in Psychology, or M.A. in Clinical Psychology under the earlier UGC framework.
The authorities were further directed to recognise, recommence or continue the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) programme from August 2026 for the academic session 2026-27 and ensure that the programme remains available for as long as necessary to enable eligible students under the old system to complete their academic progression and obtain professional registration.
Examining the old and new academic pathways, the Court noted that students who had enrolled in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes under the earlier framework had done so because it permitted progression to the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) course, which was a prerequisite for registration with the RCI.
The Court found that there was no legal impediment to implementing the revised framework for future entrants. However, compelling existing students to comply with the new eligibility criteria would require many of them to repeat undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Clinical Psychology before becoming eligible for registration, resulting in duplication of education, disruption of academic continuity and an excessive academic burden.
Referring to its earlier decision in Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that although educational policy ordinarily falls within the domain of expert bodies and judicial interference is limited, constitutional courts are empowered to intervene where the implementation of a policy is arbitrary, unreasonable or operates retrospectively to the prejudice of students who had already acted on the basis of the earlier framework.
The Court held that the petitioners possessed a legitimate and well-founded expectation that after completing their existing academic courses, they would be entitled to pursue an M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) and thereafter secure registration with the RCI.
Abruptly applying the new regulatory framework without providing an effective transitional mechanism was held to be manifestly unreasonable, disproportionate and violative of the principles of fairness, as it effectively withdrew an accrued academic and professional opportunity after the students had already invested time and resources under the earlier system.
The petition had been filed by students who had completed, or were pursuing, M.A. in Clinical Psychology after obtaining a bachelor’s degree in another discipline. They contended that the discontinuation of the M.Phil. programme had left them without a viable route to professional registration despite having pursued their education in accordance with the regulations prevailing when they enrolled. They sought protection for all similarly placed students forming part of the transitional batch identified in the Court’s earlier order.
The dispute arose after the UGC, in pursuance of the National Education Policy, 2020, notified the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022. Regulation 14 prohibited higher educational institutions from offering M.Phil. programmes, resulting in the discontinuation of the M.Phil. (Clinical Psychology) course without simultaneously introducing a harmonised replacement pathway for regulated mental health professions.
The Court also examined records of inter-ministerial meetings held in 2023, which proposed two alternative pathways under the revised framework, including a specialised four-year undergraduate route for allied professions and a general pathway consisting of a four-year undergraduate programme followed by a two-year master’s degree.
The minutes of those meetings recognised that existing M.Phil. programmes should continue in parallel for five to six years to prevent disruption to mental healthcare education and the availability of qualified professionals. However, the earlier M.Phil. programme was subsequently extended only for two years.
The Court further noted that the UGC’s public notice dated January 30, 2024 effectively discontinued the previous academic pathway from the 2025-26 academic session, under which graduates from different academic disciplines could pursue M.Phil. in Clinical Psychology.
It observed that the absence of an adequate transition mechanism had created uncertainty regarding academic progression, professional registration and career prospects for students who had legitimately enrolled under the previous regulatory framework. The High Court concluded that such students could not be compelled to restart or duplicate their education merely because of a subsequent policy change and directed the authorities to preserve the M.Phil. route for the protected transitional cohort.
The post Delhi High Court bars UGC from applying new Clinical Psychology framework to existing students appeared first on India Legal.