'No Special Circumstance To Justify Law Affecting Single Entity' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017
Observing that it would be impermissible for the legislature to single out one entity from other entities without a reasonable classification, the Supreme Court today (Oct. 3) struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 (“Repeal Act”) as unconstitutional which sought to single out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State. The bench comprising Justices...
Observing that it would be impermissible for the legislature to single out one entity from other entities without a reasonable classification, the Supreme Court today (Oct. 3) struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 (“Repeal Act”) as unconstitutional which sought to single out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared the Repeal Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the constitution because no reasonable classification was pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities.
The Repeal Act was enacted in 2017 by the Punjab Assembly to repeal the erstwhile Khalsa University Act, 2016 (2016 Act) which mandated that Khalsa University follow the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 issued by the University Grants Commission.
The State Government believed that authorizing Khalsa University to undertake the admission and education system in the Khalsa College as per the UGC Regulations may shadow and damage its character and pristine glory. Thus, the Repeal Act was enacted to repeal the 2016 Act.
This exercise of the State Government repealing the 2016 Act was challenged by Khalsa University (Appellant no.1) on the ground that the Repeal Act unreasonably singled out Khalsa University against other private universities in the State without any reasonable basis.
According to the Khalsa University, the Repeal Act pertained to a single entity i.e., Khalsa University itself, and therefore the impugned Act was not based on a reasonable basis for grouping one person as a class by itself, and such a classification was not founded on an intelligible differentia and as such was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
After the High Court refused to declare the Repeal Act unconstitutional, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues for Consideration
a. Whether the Repeal Act gives out a differential treatment to an Appellant/Khalsa University was valid in law or not?
b. Whether the Repeal Act was liable to be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness?
Court's Observation
Setting aside the decision of the High Court, the Judgment authored by Justice Gavai after referring to the catena of judgments, especially Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others (1950) observed that though it is permissible for the legislation to single out one entity from the rest of the group, it must be based on reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved.
“It is thus a settled position of law that though a legislation affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved. There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from the rest of the group. Further, if a legislation affecting a single person, entity or undertaking is being enacted, there should be special circumstances requiring such an enactment. Such special circumstances should be gathered from the material taken into consideration by the competent legislature and shall include the Parliamentary/Legislative Debates.”, the Court observed.
According to the court, there must exist special circumstances warranting the legislature to enact a legislation affecting single entity/undertaking from the rest of the others.
“this Court has upheld the legislation affecting the single entity, institution or undertaking, if found that it was done in emergent and extreme circumstances preceded by enquiries, parliamentary debates, etc. It was done when the legislature took into consideration the relevant material and found it expedient to do so.”, the court said.
The Court termed the reasons supplied by the State Government behind the enactment of the Repeal Act that the 2016 Act would damage the character and pristine glory of the Khalsa College as inappropriate.
“In any case, no material is placed on record as to what was the compelling and emergent situation so as to enact a law which could affect the Khalsa University (appellant No.1). No material is placed on record to show that there were any discussions prior to the Impugned Act being passed or as to what material was placed and taken into consideration by the competent legislature.”, the court said.
“Even going by the law laid down by the majority in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri (supra), since the Khalsa University had specifically pleaded a ground regarding discrimination, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have dealt with the said challenge. We therefore find that the Impugned Act singled out the Khalsa University (appellant No.1) amongst 16 private Universities in the State and no reasonable classification has been pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University (appellant No.1) against the other private Universities. The Impugned Act therefore would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”, the court held.
Repeal Act Suffers from Manifest Arbitrariness
The Court observed that the Repeal Act suffers from the vires of manifest arbitrariness as the impugned Act does something excessive and disproportionate.
According to the Court, it would be unjustified to put a blanket restriction on the activities of the Khalsa University vide the enactment of the Repeal Act when the Khalsa College was not even part of the Khalsa University.
After recording the submission by the Appellants that the Khalsa College would not be touched or adversely affected by the establishment of the Khalsa University, the Court rejected the State's argument that the Khalsa University's building resemblance might have an impact on the prestige and glory of the Khalsa College.
“Even during the course of hearing, a specific statement has been made by the appellants that the Khalsa College would not be affiliated with the Khalsa University. The maps have been placed on record which show the placement of Khalsa College in the campus along with the other institutions. The perusal of the said map would clearly reveal that it is only the Khalsa College established in 1892 which is a heritage one. All other buildings have been subsequently constructed having no resemblance with the Khalsa College building. It can thus be seen that the very foundation that Khalsa University would shadow and damage the character and pristine glory of Khalsa College which has, over a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa heritage is on a non-existent basis. It could thus be seen that the Impugned Act, which was enacted with a purpose which was non-existent, would fall under the ambit of manifest arbitrariness and would therefore be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We are therefore of the considered view that the Impugned Act is also liable to be set aside on the same ground.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned Repeal Act was struck down as being unconstitutional. Resultantly, the 2016 Act was revived.
Appearance:
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab
Case Title: KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773