National Council For Teacher Education Is 'State' Under Article 19(6), Its Executive Decision Constitutes 'Law': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a “State” for the purposes of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

Justice C Hari Shankar held that an executive decision taken by the NCTE would also, therefore, constitute “law” for the purposes of Article 19(6).

Article 19(6) empowers the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The court said that there is no reason why the decisions of the NCTE, taken in exercise of the power lawfully conferred on it under Section 12 (c) of the NCTE Act, would not constitute “law” for the purpose of Article 19(6).

It added that a decision taken by the NCTE in exercise of such a power cannot be likened to an ordinary executive decision taken in exercise of the general administrative power vested in an authority.

Justice Shankar made the observations while dismissing a batch of pleas moved by various Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) who had applied for commencement of their respective institutions with permission to start a B.Ed course.

The petitioners were aggrieved the decision taken by NCTE in its 55th General Body Meeting (GBM) to return all pending applications seeking recognition for teachers training course.

The decision was avowedly taken in order to implement the new National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020).

The petitioners contended that the decision of NCTE was purely executive in character and that such an executive decision cannot constitute “law” within the meaning of Article 19(6), as the same could derogate from the fundamental right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The court ruled that the impugned decision does not violate the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g).

Justice Shankar observed that there is an overarching and pre- eminent element of public interest involved in ensuring a gradual and seamless shift from the existing system of teacher education to the integrated and holistic system of teacher education envisaged in the NEP 2020.

“The concerns expressed in the NEP 2020, and the resultant decision to switch to an integrated system of teacher education, to replace the erstwhile B.Ed. or D.EI.Ed. programs, is eminently in public interest,” the court said.

It added that the impugned decision not to continue to process the petitioners' applications and, therefore, to return the same was legitimately relatable to Section 12 (c) of the NCTE Act.

“In view thereof, the petitioners cannot insist that, despite such legitimate exercise of its power by the NCTE, as manifested by the impugned decisions taken in the 55th GBM, their applications, seeking establishment of fresh stand alone institutions should nonetheless continue to be processed by the Regional Committee,” the court observed.

It said that Section 12 (c) of the NCTE Act empowers the NCTE to decide not to process pending applications for recognition, by stand alone institutions, any further.

Justice Shankar observed that the power to implement the said decision would carry, with it, the power to return such applications.

“Even in the absence of any specific power to return pending applications, therefore, the decision can be justified on the basis of the doctrine of implied powers,” it said.

Invoking a doha of poet-saint Kabir, Justice Shankar said that the art of how to educate is a science in itself. He said that teaching the teacher how to teach is itself a matter of great import, which cannot brook any compromise in standards.

“It is, therefore, to monitor the standards of institutions which educate the educators that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was set up in 1973 by a Government resolution, as a national expert body to advise Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining to teacher education,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Archit Mishra and Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocates; Mr. Chritarth Palli and Mr. Aman Singhania, Advs; Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Manish and Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocates; Mr. Abhishek Singh and Mr. Madavaram Priyanka, Advocates Mr. Gourav Arora, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Singh and Ms. Priyanka Madavaram, Advocate; Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti Kumari and Mr. Mrinal Kishor, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Gupta and Ms. Akansha, Advocates; Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh K. Srivastava, Mr. Naman Tandon and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. N.K. Bhatnagar, Ms. Rupali and Ms. Pratishta Majumdar, Advocates; Mr. Hemant Singh and Ms. Urvashi Jain, Advocates

Title: PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 483

Click here to read order