9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 1044 - SC - Indian LawsAmendment introduced to Sections 2, 4, 9 and 17, as well as insertion of Sections 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995) - The amendment was by way of Amendment Act No.5 of 2000, hereinafter called the Amendment Act - Held that - Amended Section 4(1) under Act 5 of 2000 inclusive of the introduction of proviso to the said Section is ultra-vires of the Constitution and the same is liable to be set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the amendments to Section 4(1) of the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995. 2. Validity of the proviso to Section 4 of the 1995 Act. 3. Validity of the amendment to Section 9(2) of the 1995 Act. 4. Legislative competence of the State Legislature regarding the amendments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the amendments to Section 4(1) of the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995: The amendment to Section 4(1) added the word "only" and the expression "in the above fields and in these fields may..." while deleting "dissemination of knowledge." The court found that this amendment restricted the scope of education to Vedic learning alone, which was contrary to the original intent of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of education, stating that Vedas cover various aspects of life, including science and human anatomy. The court held that the amendment violated the Constitutional right to education under Articles 14 and 21, as it restricted the University from imparting education in other fields. The court concluded that the amendment was ultra-vires and set it aside. 2. Validity of the proviso to Section 4 of the 1995 Act: The proviso stipulated that no courses should be conducted and no centers should be established or run without the prior approval of the State Government. The court held that the conduct of courses falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the University Grants Commission (UGC) as per Section 12 of the UGC Act, 1956, and Entry 66 of List-I of the Constitution. Therefore, the State Legislature lacked competence to impose such a restriction. The court also extended this reasoning to the running of centers, holding that the entire proviso was ultra-vires. 3. Validity of the amendment to Section 9(2) of the 1995 Act: The amendment required the Board of Management to submit a panel of three persons to the State Government for approval before appointing the Chancellor. The court found that this did not impinge upon the autonomy of the University or violate any Constitutional rights. The court upheld this amendment, stating that the ultimate appointment was still made by the Board of Management from the panel they prepared. 4. Legislative competence of the State Legislature regarding the amendments: The court examined the interplay between Entries 63 to 66 of List-I and Entry 25 of List-III of the Constitution. It concluded that the State Legislature lacked competence to regulate the conduct of courses and the running of centers, as these fall under the purview of the UGC, which is governed by central legislation. The court held that the amendments to Section 4(1) and the proviso were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Conclusion: The court partly allowed the appeal, declaring the amendments to Section 4(1) and the proviso ultra-vires and setting them aside. The amendment to Section 9(2) was upheld. The judgment of the Division Bench was confirmed in other respects.
|
