2011 (8) TMI 1086 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Committee so constituted may not be justified in submitting the report stating that the entire uniform system of education be scrapped and the text books already provided for be discarded? Whether the Expert Committee has mis-directed itself as it ought to have proceeded primarily to examine the ways and means of implementing the uniform system of education, curiously the Committee, in its final report concluded that no text book can be used for the academic year 2011-12.? Whether the Committee members were not of the unanimous opinion that the uniform syllabus and common text books have to be discarded from the current year? Whether the High Court directed the Government to notify the approved text books after conducting the study with a view to comply with the direction issued earlier on 30.4.2010. This direction was issued to enable the schools to choose from the multiple text books? Whether the State has exceeded its power in bringing the Amending Act to postpone an enactment which has already come into force? Whether if the law was passed only ostensibly but was in truth and substance, one for accomplishing an unauthorized object, the court would be entitled to lift the veil and judicially review the case. Whether the State has sought to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly as it was prevented from doing so in view of the judgment of the Division Bench which upheld the validity of the Parent Act 2010? Whether the Amendment Act 2011 is an arbitrary piece of legislation and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the Amendment Act 2011 was merely a pretence to do away with the uniform system of education under the guise of putting on hold the implementation of the Parent Act, which the State was not empowered to do so? Whether if the impugned Amending Act has to be given effect to, it would result in unsettling various issues and the larger interest of children would be jeopardized?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011.
2. Implementation of the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010.
3. Allegations of arbitrary exercise of power and political motives behind the amendment.
4. Compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
5. Legislative competence and judicial review of legislative actions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011:
The High Court struck down Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2011, stating that it was an arbitrary piece of legislation that did not satisfy the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendment was seen as a guise to repeal the Act 2010, which had already been partially implemented. The court found that the Amendment Act was a product of arbitrary exercise of power and was contrary to the principles of justice, equity, and fair play.

2. Implementation of the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010:
The Act 2010 aimed to enforce a uniform education system in Tamil Nadu to provide quality education without discrimination. The Act was to be implemented in phases, starting with Standards I and VI in the academic year 2010-11 and extending to other standards in the academic year 2011-12. The High Court had upheld the validity of the Act 2010, except for Sections 11, 12, and 14, which were struck down. The Amendment Act 2011 postponed the implementation of the uniform system, which the court found to be unjustified and contrary to the earlier judicial decisions.

3. Allegations of Arbitrary Exercise of Power and Political Motives Behind the Amendment:
The Amendment Act 2011 was challenged on the grounds that it was a political decision influenced by the change of government. The new government, which took office on 16.5.2011, decided to scrap the uniform education system without any material basis. The court found that the decision to amend the Act 2010 was taken hastily and without proper consideration of the implications for students, teachers, and parents. The court emphasized that the government should not change its stand merely because of a change in political power, especially when the earlier decision was in the public interest.

4. Compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
The Act 2010 was in line with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which aimed to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years. The High Court had directed the state to bring the provisions of the Act 2010 in consonance with the Act 2009. The Amendment Act 2011, however, deferred the implementation of the uniform system, which was seen as a violation of the constitutional mandate to provide quality education to all children.

5. Legislative Competence and Judicial Review of Legislative Actions:
The court reiterated that the legislature has the power to enact laws, but such laws must comply with constitutional provisions and judicial decisions. The Amendment Act 2011 was seen as an attempt to nullify the earlier judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which had upheld the validity of the Act 2010. The court held that the legislature cannot overrule judicial decisions by enacting laws that are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that struck down Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2011. The court directed the state to implement the provisions of the Act 2010 within ten days, emphasizing the need to provide quality education without discrimination and in compliance with constitutional mandates.

← Previous Next →