2005 (2) TMI 824 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an institution should be established in an area to serve the educational needs of that locality? Whether Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of AICTE Act and it is constitutionally valid?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the State Government under Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
2. Repugnancy between Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the A.P. Act and Section 10 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act).
3. The role of the State Government in determining the educational needs of the locality.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence of the State Government:
The Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (A.P. Act) was enacted by the State Legislature to reform, organize, and develop the educational system in the State. The Act received the President's assent, and its legislative source is traced to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, which includes education, including technical education, medical education, and universities. The AICTE Act, enacted by the Parliament under Entry 66 of the Union List, aims to regulate and coordinate the development of technical education across India. The State argued that Section 20 of the A.P. Act operates within its legislative competence to identify and fulfill the educational needs of the locality, which is distinct from the broader mandate of the AICTE Act.

2. Repugnancy Between Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the A.P. Act and Section 10 of the AICTE Act:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the A.P. Act was void and inoperative due to repugnancy with Section 10 of the AICTE Act. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that both Parliament and State Legislatures are supreme in their respective fields and that courts must interpret legislation to avoid conflicts. If unavoidable, Parliamentary legislation prevails. The Court found no repugnancy between Section 20 of the A.P. Act and Section 10 of the AICTE Act, as they operate in different fields. The AICTE Act focuses on the coordinated and integrated development of technical education at a national level, while the A.P. Act addresses the specific educational needs of localities within the State.

3. Role of the State Government in Determining Educational Needs:
Section 20 of the A.P. Act mandates the State Government to conduct surveys to identify the educational needs of localities and grant permissions for establishing educational institutions based on these needs. The Supreme Court held that the State Government is competent to decide the educational needs of a locality and that Section 20(3)(a)(i) does not encroach upon the powers of the AICTE. The Court noted that the AICTE's role is to ensure coordinated development and maintenance of standards in technical education, not to determine the specific local needs within a State. The decision-making process under Section 20 of the A.P. Act includes representatives of the State, ensuring that local educational needs are considered.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, holding that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the A.P. Act is constitutionally valid and not repugnant to Section 10 of the AICTE Act. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were ordered. The Court affirmed the State's role in determining local educational needs while recognizing the AICTE's broader mandate for technical education standards and coordination at the national level.