2003 (3) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the State of Andhra Pradesh to enact the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988.
2. Comparison of the 1988 Act with the University Grants Commission Act and the Commissionerate Act.
3. Determination of whether the 1988 Act encroaches upon the legislative field of the Central Government.

Summary:

1. Legislative Competence of the State of Andhra Pradesh:
The core question was whether the State of Andhra Pradesh had the legislative competence to enact the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). The Supreme Court examined the legislative competence in light of the Constitution of India, specifically Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the VII Schedule. The Court held that the State Act, which was enacted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), did not encroach upon the legislative field set apart by Entry 66, List I. The 1988 Act was found to be in aid of the UGC Act and not in derogation thereof.

2. Comparison with UGC Act and Commissionerate Act:
The Court compared the provisions of the 1988 Act with those of the University Grants Commission Act and the previously invalidated Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 ("the Commissionerate Act"). The Court noted that the 1988 Act had curtailed the powers and functions of the Council to ensure they acted in accordance with UGC guidelines. The 1988 Act was designed to assist the UGC in the determination and maintenance of standards in higher education, thereby addressing the defects pointed out in the earlier judgment (Osmania University Teachers' Association case).

3. Encroachment on Central Legislative Field:
The Court examined whether the 1988 Act encroached upon the legislative field of the Central Government. It was held that the 1988 Act did not encroach upon the Central field as it was subject to the guidelines issued by the UGC and aimed at filling gaps to control effectively a large number of universities. The Court emphasized that the State Act was in aid of the Parliamentary Act and did not entrench upon it. The doctrine of pith and substance was applied, and it was concluded that the modifications made in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the Commissionerate Act were significant enough to remedy the defects identified in the earlier judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had declared the 1988 Act ultra vires the Constitution. The Court held that the 1988 Act was a valid piece of legislation and did not encroach upon the legislative field of the Central Government. The appeals were allowed, and the 1988 Act was upheld as intra vires.