SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 300

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
State of Kerala, etc., Appellants
Versus
Very Rev. Mother Provincial, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2598-2600 of 1969, 21-53 155-190, 199, 200-203, 273 and 324 of 1970, D/- 10-8-1970.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c), 30, 19 (1) (f), 31 (2), 31A (1) (b) - Kerala University Act, 1969 – Section 48 (2) and (4), 49(1), (2), (3) and (9) , 53(2) and (4) , 56 and 58 - University - Private colleges - Challenged - Appeals by certificates - Kerala University Act, 1969 was passed to reorganise University of Kerala with a view to establishing a teaching, residential and affiliating University for southern districts of State of Kerala - Some of its provisions affected private colleges, particularly those founded by minority communities in State - They were consequently challenged on various grounds - Petitions were consolidated in High Court and were decided by judgment and order under appeal - 33 petitioners belong to different denominations of Christian community - Whether equality clause can at all give protection, when Constitution itself classifies minority communities into a separate entity for special protection which is denied to majority community– Held, High Court has held that provisions (except Sec. 63) are also offensive to Art. 19 (1) (f) in so far as petitioners are citizens of India both in respect of majority as well as minority institutions - This was at first debated at least in so far as majority institutions were concerned - Majority institutions invoked Art. 14 and complained of discrimination - However at a later stage of proceedings stated that he had instructions to say that any provision held inapplicable to minority institutions would not be enforced against majority institutions also - Hence it relieves Court of task of considering matter - Appeals of State Government of Kerala and of University are dismissed with costs - One set of hearing fees - For reasons given by High Court Court do not accept contentions of seven appellants who have challenged some of other provisions of Act except Sections 48 (6) and 49 (6) do not consider it necessary to repeat what is said by High Court - These appeals are dismissed

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- These appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution are directed against a common judgement, September 19, 1969, declaring certain provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act 9 of 1969), to be ultra vires the Constitution of India while upholding the remaining Act as valid. They were heard together. This judgment will dispose of all of them. The validity of the Act was challenged in the High Court by diverse petitioners in 36 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Some parts of the Act were declared ultra vires the Constitution. As a result there are cross-appeals. 36 appeals have been filed against the several petitioners by the State of Kerala. Another 36 appeals have been filed by the University of Kerala which made common cause with the Government of Kerala. 7 appeals have been preferred by seven original petitioners, who seek a declaration that some other provisions of the Act, upheld by the High Court as valid, are also void.

2. The Kerala University Act, 1969 (which repealed and replaced the Kerala Univeristy Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), was passed to reorganise the University of Kerala with a view to establishing a teaching, residential and affiliating University for the southern districts of the State of Kerala. Some of its provisions affected private colleges, particularly those founded by minority communities in the State. They were consequently challenged on various grounds. The petitions were consolidated in the High Court and were decided by the judgment and order under appeal.

3. Before we being to discuss these appeal we may say a few words about them. 33 petitioners belong to different denominations of the Christian community; 8 are Superiors of different Catholic Religious Congregations; 8 are Catholic Bishops representing their dioceses; 3 are Vicars of Catholic parishes; 5 are Boards of Associations constituted by different Catholic denominations for establishing colleges and other educational institutions and 3 are Bishops of the Malankara Orthodox Church. 4 petitioner have been filed by the Metropolitan of the Marthoma Syrian Church and 2 by the Madhya Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India. The remaining 3 petitions are respectively by private colleges founded and administered by Sri Sankara College Association Kalady, Sree Narayana Trusts, Quilon and the Nair Service Society, Changannacherry. The petitioners in the 33 petitions specially invoke the provisions of Art. 30 of the Constitution which protects and right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. All the 36 petitions invoke Arts. 19 (1) (f), 31 and 14 of the Constitution.

4. The impugned Act consists of 78 sections divided into 9 chapters. The main attack in the petitions is against ChapterVIII headed private colleges consisting of Ss. 47 to 61 and some provisions of Chapter IX, particularly Section 63. The High Court had declared that sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 48, sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 49, sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (9) of Section 53, sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 56, Section 58 (except to some extent) are offensive to Art. 19 (1) (f) in so far as citizen petitioners are concerned and additionally, in so far as the minority institutions are concerned, offensive to Art. 30 (1), and therefore void. The petitions were, therefore, allowed except two petitions (O. P. S. No. 2339 and 2796 of 1969) filed by Sree Sankara College Association and the Nair Service Seciety since the petitioners were companies and were not entitled to the benefit of Art. 30 (1) not being minority institutions and not entitled to Art. 19 (1) (f) not being citizens. Section 63 was, however, held to offend Art. 31 (2) and not saved by Art. 31A (1) (b) and this declaration was in favour of all the petitioners. It was also declared void as offending Art. 30 (1) in so far as the minor







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top