2011 Supreme(SC) 745

2011 (8) Supreme 613
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. — Appellants
versus
K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.6015-6027/2011
Decided on : 9-8-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Unless it is found that act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to statutory provisions, is unreasonable, or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power.
2. In case a statute violates any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, such statute remains still-born; void; ineffectual and nugatory, without having legal force and effect in view of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Constitution.
3. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance.
4. Whenever there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or of the executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action.
5. In case the Amending Act is struck down by the court for want of legislative competence or is violative of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it would be un-enforceable in view of the provision under Article 13(2) of the Constitution and in such circumstances the old Act would revive, but not otherwise.
6. A judicial pronouncement of a competent court cannot be annulled by the legislature in exercise of its legislative powers for any reason whatsoever. The legislature, in order to revalidate the law, can re-frame the conditions existing prior to the judgment on the basis of which certain statutory provisions had been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Headnote:Education-The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 - Section 3 - The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 -Appeals against judgment of High Court whereby it struck down Section 3 of Amendment Act, 2011 and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of Act, 2010 i.e. to implement the common syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and commence the classes on or before 22.7.2011- Held legislature in its wisdom had enforced the Act 2010 providing for common syllabus and text books for Standards I and VI from the academic year 2010-2011 and for Standards II to V and VII to X from the academic year 2011-2012- Validity of this law had been upheld by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.4.2010 and by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2010- Certain directions had been issued by the High Court which could be carried out easily by the State exercising its administrative powers without resorting to any legislative function- By the Amendment Act, even the application of Act 2010, so far as Standards I and VI are concerned, had also been withdrawn without realising that students who had studied in academic year 2010-11 would have difficulty in the next higher class if they are given a different syllabus and different kind of text books- The Amendment Act 2011 provided that the students in Standards I and VI would also revert back to the old system which had already elapsed- The Amendment Act 2011, in fact, nullified the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 30.4.2010, duly approved by the order of this Court dated 10.9.2010, and tantamounted to repealing of the Act 2010 as unfettered and uncanalised power had been bestowed upon the Government to notify the commencement of the uniform education System- State Government held not justified in amending the provisions of Section 3 of the Act 2010 –Impugned order of High Court called for no interference-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 64, 65)

        Education-The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 - Section 3 - The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 -Appeals against judgment of High Court whereby it struck down Section 3 of Amendment Act, 2011 and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of Act, 2010 i.e. to implement the common syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and commence the classes on or before 22.7.2011-State Government may submit only to the extent that the High Court itself had given option to the State to implement the Common Education System after ensuring compliance of directions issued by the High Court itself- However, no such liberty was available to the State so far as Standards I and VI were concerned- After the new Government was sworn in on 16.5.2011, tenders were invited to publish books being taught under the old system on 21.5.2011 and subsequent thereto, it was decided in the Cabinet meeting on 22.5.2011 not to implement the uniform education system- Whole exercise of amending Act 2010 was carried out most hurriedly-Tenders had been invited on 21.5.2011 for publishing the text books, taught under the old system even prior to Cabinet meeting dated 22.5.2011. - Thus, a decision had already been taken not to implement the Common Education System- If one crore twenty lacs students were to revert back to the multiple syllabus with the syllabus and textbooks applicable prior to 2010 after the academic term of 2011-12 had begun, they would be utterly confused and would be put to enormous stress- The entire exercise by Government was therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to students, teachers and parents- Thus, State Government could by no means be justified in amending the provisions of Section 3 of the Act 2010, particularly in such uncertain terms- Impugned order of High Court called for no interference Appeals dismissed (Paras 65 to 71)

        Education-Change of policy with the Change of government-Validity of - Unless it is found that act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to statutory provisions, is unreasonable, or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power- Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law (Para 20)

        Doctrine of lifting the veil- In order to test the constitutional validity of the Act, where it is alleged that the statute violates the fundamental rights, it is necessary to ascertain its true nature and character and the impact of the Act- Thus, courts may examine with some strictness the substance of the legislation and for that purpose, the court has to look behind the form and appearance thereof to discover the true character and nature of the legislation- Its purport and intent have to be determined- In order to do so it is permissible in law to take into consideration all factors such as history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy (Para 26)

        Conditional Legislation- As the legislature cannot carry out each and every function by itself, it may be necessary to delegate its power for certain limited purposes in favour of the executive- Delegating such powers itself is a legislative function- Such delegation of power, however, cannot be wide, uncanalised or unguided- The legislature while delegating such power is required to lay down the criteria or standard so as to enable the delegatee to act within the framework of the statute- The principle on which the power of the legislature is to be exercised is required to be disclosed- It is also trite that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated- Delegation cannot be extended to “repealing or altering in essential particulars of laws which are already in force in the area in question”- In case the legislature wants to delegate its power in respect of the implementation of the law enacted by it, it must provide sufficient guidelines, conditions, on fulfillment of which, the Act would be enforced by the delegate- Conferring unfettered, uncanalised powers without laying down certain norms for enforcement of the Act tantamounts to abdication of legislative power by the legislature which is not permissible in law- More so, where the Act has already come into force, such a power cannot be exercised just to nullify its commencement thereof (Paras 29, 34)

        Constitution of India,1950- Article 14 -Legislative Arbitrariness- Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality- Whenever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or of the executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action- A law cannot be declared ultra vires on the ground of hardship but can be done so on the ground of total unreasonableness-The legislation can be questioned as arbitrary and ultra vires under Article 14- However, to declare an Act ultra vires under Article14, Court must be satisfied in respect of substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself (Paras 35 to 38)

        Constitution of India,1950- Article 14-Amending Act-If struck down-Whether old will revive-Held in case the Amending Act is struck down by the court for want of legislative competence or is violative of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it would be un-enforceable in view of the provision under Article 13(2) of the Constitution and in such circumstances the old Act would revive, but not otherwise- This proposition of law is, however, not applicable so far as subordinate legislation is concerned (Para 45)

        Constitution of India,1950- Articles 245 and 246 -Judgment of Court-Whether can be overruled by legislature- The legislature cannot by bare declaration, without anything more, directly overrule, reverse or override a judicial decision-However it can, in exercise of the plenary powers conferred upon it by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution, render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law fundamentally altering or changing the conditions on which such a decision is based- A judicial pronouncement of a competent court cannot be annulled by the legislature in exercise of its legislative powers for any reason whatsoever- The legislature, in order to revalidate the law, can re-frame the conditions existing prior to the judgment on the basis of which certain statutory provisions had been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional. (Paras 50, 51)

        Interpretation of statutes-Statement of objects and reasons-Reading of-While interpreting statutory provisions- The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill is not admissible as an aid to the construction of the Act to be passed, but it can be used for limited purpose for ascertaining the conditions which prevailed at that time which necessitated the making of the law, and extent and urgency of the evil, which it sought to remedy- The Statement of Objects and Reasons may be relevant to find out what is objective of any given statute passed by the legislature- It may provide for the reasons which induced the legislature to enact the statute- “For the purpose of deciphering the objects and purport of the Act, the court can look to the Statement of Objects and Reasons thereof”- Statement of Objects and Reasons of any enactment spells out the core reason for which the enactment is brought and it can be looked into for appreciating the true intent of the legislature or to find out the object sought to be achieved by enactment of the particular Act or even for judging the reasonableness of the classifications made by such Act. (Paras 52 to 54)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against judgment of High Court whereby it struck down Section 3 of Amendment Act, 2011 and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of Act, 2010 i.e. to implement the common syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and commence the classes on or before 22.7.2011.

       Findings of the Court :

        A- Held legislature in its wisdom had enforced the Act 2010 providing for common syllabus and text books for Standards I and VI from the academic year 2010-2011 and for Standards II to V and VII to X from the academic year 2011-2012. Validity of this law had been upheld by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.4.2010 and by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2010. Certain directions had been issued by the High Court which could be carried out easily by the State exercising its administrative powers without resorting to any legislative function. By the Amendment Act, even the application of Act 2010, so far as Standards I and VI are concerned, had also been withdrawn without realising that students who had studied in academic year 2010.11 would have difficulty in the next higher class if they are given a different syllabus and different kind of text books.

        B. The Amendment Act 2011 provided that the students in Standards I and VI would also revert back to the old system which had already elapsed- The Amendment Act 2011, in fact, nullified the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 30.4.2010, duly approved by the order of this Court dated 10.9.2010, and tantamounted to repealing of the Act 2010 as unfettered and uncanalised power had been bestowed upon the Government to notify the commencement of the uniform education System. State Government was held not justified in amending the provisions of Section 3 of the Act 2010.

        C. State Government may submit only to the extent that the High Court itself had given option to the State to implement the Common Education System after ensuring compliance of directions issued by the High Court itself. However, no such liberty was available to the State so far as Standards I and VI were concerned. After the new Government was sworn in on 16.5.2011, tenders were invited to publish books being taught under the old system on 21.5.2011 and subsequent thereto, it was decided in the Cabinet meeting on 22.5.2011 not to implement the uniform education system. Whole exercise of amending Act 2010 was carried out most hurriedly-Tenders had been invited on 21.5.2011 for publishing the text books, taught under the old system even prior to Cabinet meeting dated 22.5.2011. Thus, a decision had already been taken not to implement the Common Education System.

        D. If one crore twenty lacs students were to revert back to the multiple syllabus with the syllabus and textbooks applicable prior to 2010 after the academic term of 2011-12 had begun, they would be utterly confused and would be put to enormous stress.The entire exercise by Government was therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to students, teachers and parents. Thus, State Government could by no means be justified in amending the provisions of Section 3 of the Act 2010, particularly in such uncertain terms. Impugned order of High Court called for no interference .Appeals were dismissed.