1970 (8) TMI 80 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act 9 of 1969) to be ultra vires the Constitution of India? Held that - High Court was right in its appreciation of the true position in the light of the Constitution. We agree with the High Court that sub-ss. (2) and (4) of ss. 48 and 49 are ultra vires Art. 30(1). Indeed we think that sub-ss. (6) of these two sections are also ultra vires. They offend more than the other two of which they are a part and parcel. We also agree that sub-ss. (1), (2), (3) and (9) of s. 53, sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s. 56 are ultra vires as they fail with ss. 48 and 49. We express no opinion regarding these sub- sections vis-a-vis Art. 30(1). We also agree that Section 58 (in so far as it removes disqualification which the founders may not like to agree to) and Sec. 63 are ultra vires Articles 30(1) in respect of the minority institutions. We do not accept the contentions of the seven appellants who have challenged some of the other provisions of the Act except ss. 48 (6) and 49(6) and do not consider it necessary to repeat what is said by the High Court. These appeals are dismissed except as to those sections but without costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969.
2. Violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
3. Violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.
4. Equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Certain Provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969:
The appeals challenge the validity of certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969, which replaced the Kerala University Act, 1957. The Act aimed to reorganize the University of Kerala and affected private colleges, particularly those founded by minority communities. The High Court declared several provisions of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution while upholding the remaining Act as valid. The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing these appeals.

2. Violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution:
Article 30(1) guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The main contention was that the Act interfered with the administration of minority institutions. The Court highlighted that the administration of such institutions must be free from control, allowing founders or their nominees to manage the institution as they see fit. The Court found that sections 48 and 49 of the Act, which required the establishment of governing bodies or managing councils with members nominated by the University and Government, infringed upon this right. These bodies were distinct corporate entities, not answerable to the founders, thus violating Article 30(1). The Court also noted that other provisions, such as sections 53, 56, and 58, further interfered with the administration, reinforcing the violation of Article 30(1).

3. Violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution:
The High Court held that the provisions of the Act were also offensive to Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) in so far as the petitioners were citizens of India, both in respect of majority and minority institutions. The Supreme Court noted that the State had announced it would not enforce provisions against majority institutions if they could not be enforced against minority institutions. Therefore, the Court did not need to address the matter under Article 19(1)(f) for both types of institutions. Section 63, which allowed the Government to appoint the University to manage private colleges temporarily, was found to involve compulsory requisition of properties, violating Article 31(2) and (2A).

4. Equality Clause under Article 14 of the Constitution:
Majority community institutions claimed protection under Article 14, seeking equality with minority institutions in establishing and administering their institutions. The Court noted that the Constitution itself provides special protection to minority communities, which does not extend to majority institutions. However, since the State announced it would not enforce the disputed provisions against majority institutions if they could not be enforced against minority institutions, the Court did not need to address this issue further.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, declaring sub-sections (2) and (4) of sections 48 and 49, sub-sections (1), (2), (3), and (9) of section 53, sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 56, and section 58 as ultra vires Article 30(1). Section 63 was also declared ultra vires Articles 30(1) and 31(2) and (2A). The appeals by the State Government of Kerala and the University were dismissed with costs, while the appeals challenging other provisions of the Act, except sections 48(6) and 49(6), were also dismissed without costs.

← Previous Next →