2007 (5) TMI 664 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007, as replaced by the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the said Act.
3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by the said Act.
4. Conflict between the said Act and existing Central laws, specifically the AICTE Act, Medical Council Act, and Dentists Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Said Act:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Ordinance, 2007, which was later replaced by the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007. The challenge was based on the grounds that the Act infringed upon their rights to establish and administer educational institutions, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:
The petitioners argued that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the said Act because the area of higher and technical education falls under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, which allows the State to legislate on education, is subject to Entry 66 of List I. The petitioners contended that the field of higher education is already occupied by Central laws such as the AICTE Act, Medical Council Act, and Dentists Act, which regulate standards of education and admission procedures.

The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the State Legislature does not have the competence to legislate in an area already occupied by Central laws. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Gujarat University v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudhoikar, and State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, to support this conclusion.

3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the said Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They contended that the Act's provisions, which mandated admissions through a Joint Entrance Examination conducted by a government-nominated Policy Planning Body and regulated fee structures through a government-dominated Fee Structure Committee, were not reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

The court upheld this argument, stating that the Act's provisions amounted to a complete takeover of the admission process and fee structure by the State, thereby violating the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).

4. Conflict with Existing Central Laws:
The petitioners argued that the said Act conflicted with existing Central laws, specifically the AICTE Act, Medical Council Act, and Dentists Act, which already regulate the standards of technical and medical education, including admission procedures and fee structures. The court agreed, stating that the said Act encroached upon the field occupied by these Central laws, making it unconstitutional.

The court noted that the AICTE Act empowers the All India Council for Technical Education to coordinate the development of technical education, fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees, and provide guidelines for admission of students. Similarly, the Medical Council Act and Dentists Act regulate standards of medical and dental education, including admission procedures.

The court concluded that the said Act, by abolishing the Common Entrance Test (CET) and imposing a new admission procedure and fee structure, encroached upon the field already occupied by these Central laws, thereby making it unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The court declared the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007, unconstitutional and struck it down as inoperative and invalid. The court held that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the said Act, as the field of higher and technical education is already occupied by Central laws. The court also held that the said Act violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court recommended that the State Government, if it wishes to legislate in this area, must do so by following the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution.