Laws · Analysis

University Grants Commission: procedures issued without express authority in its Act

Not yet implementedLow confidenceEnacted ActReform recommendation

Section 19 of the University Grants Commission Act 2050 lets the Commission make rules, which take effect only after government approval. The Auditor General reported that, although the Commission has rule-making power, it approved and implemented nine procedures where the Act gives no such authority, and said procedures should be drafted using powers the Act gives. A 2082 amendment to the Act added express functions on credit transfer (by directive), quality assurance and accreditation, and equivalence of foreign degrees; whether these now cover any of the nine procedures is not known.

Laws and sections involved

विश्‍वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग ऐन, २०५० · The University Grants Commission Act, 1993 s.19; s.6(1)(छ१)–(छ३) and s.6(1क)–(1घ) (added 2082)
Our translation of s.19: 'To fulfil the objectives of this Act the Commission may make necessary rules, and such rules shall come into force only after approval by the Government of Nepal.' The 2082 amendment added functions to make a directive on credit transfer between universities (s.6(1)(छ१)), to carry out quality assurance and accreditation (छ२) and to determine the equivalence of degrees from foreign universities (छ३), with related subsections.
Law Commission consolidated text (royal seal 2050/08/07; Act No. 25 of 2050); amended by Acts of 2066 (2066/10/07), 2077 (2077/03/11) and the Act Amending Some Nepal Acts 2082 (2082/04/14), whose changes are marked ③ in the text. s.6 on PDF pp.3–5; s.19 on PDF p.8. Official text

The apparent issue

The Act gives the Commission a general power to make rules, subject to government approval, and a few specific powers to set procedures (for example for its meetings) or, since 2082, a directive on credit transfer. It does not give a general power to issue procedures or directives. The Auditor General found nine procedures in force without that authority. Procedures made this way may not have been approved by the government as s.19 requires for rules, and their legal force could be questioned.

Evidence

The Auditor General reported that s.19 of the University Grants Commission Act provides that the Commission may make necessary rules; although the Commission has rule-making power, it approved and implemented nine procedures even where the Act did not give authority, and procedures should be drafted using the powers in the Act. Office of the Auditor General Ministry of Education, Science and Technology chapter, University Grants Commission, para 38, printed p.441 (PDF p.473)
In the same section the Auditor General notes that minimum standards for universities and campuses under s.10 had not been set, even though there are now 14 universities under federal law and universities under each province's law. Office of the Auditor General Same section, para 37, printed pp.440–441 (PDF pp.472–473)
Sections 6 and 19 and the 2082 amendments were read in the Law Commission's consolidated text. Nepal Law Commission PDF pp.3–5, 8

Possible readings

Reading 1 (the Auditor General's view): a body may issue binding procedures only where its Act authorises them; procedures that go beyond the Act, or that should have been rules approved by the government under s.19, lack legal basis.
Reading 2: internal procedures that only organise how the Commission carries out functions the Act already gives it (for example how it distributes grants under s.6) are administrative tools that do not need separate express authority, provided they do not create new rights or duties for others.
Reading 3: after the 2082 amendment, procedures on credit transfer, accreditation or equivalence may now rest on express functions, so the number of procedures still lacking a basis may be smaller than nine.

Why it matters in practice

If procedures that affect universities, campuses or students lack a legal basis, decisions made under them (for example on grants or eligibility) could be challenged, and the government's approval role under s.19 may be bypassed.

Hypothetical example

Hypothetical: a community campus is refused a building grant because it does not meet a condition in a Commission procedure. The campus argues that the condition appears in no rule approved by the government and so cannot be applied to it.

Possible improvements and trade-offs

Convert procedures that affect third parties into rules under s.19, with government approval (the direction the Auditor General points to).
Clear legal footing; slower to change than internal procedures.
Amend the Act to give the Commission an express, limited power to issue procedures and directives for carrying out its functions, with publication requirements.
Flexibility with a legal basis; reduces the government's oversight unless approval or publication safeguards are built in.
Review the nine procedures against the 2082 amendment and withdraw or re-issue only those still lacking a basis.
Targeted and quick; requires the list of procedures, which was not available to us.

Questions for legal review

Which nine procedures did the Auditor General mean, and does each one create rights or obligations for universities, campuses or students?
Under Nepali administrative law, may a statutory body issue binding procedures to carry out its listed functions without express authority, and what is the effect of the government-approval requirement in s.19?

Research status

Researched: 2026-10-12
Confidence: Low confidence — The Auditor General's finding is direct and s.19 was read, but the nine procedures are not named, they were not opened, and the 2082 amendment may since have provided a basis for some of them.
Review: Not yet reviewed by a qualified lawyer.

Still unresolved

The list and texts of the nine procedures were not found.
The University Grants Commission Working Arrangement Rules 2060, which the Auditor General cites elsewhere, were not opened.
The Commission's response to the audit finding was not found.