The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Assam Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 2006, affirming the need for regulation to ensure educational quality and standards.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The vires of the Assam Non-Government Educational Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 is the subject matter of challenge in these two petitions instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Associations of private unaided schools and there are more than 200 such schools in the State of Assam. It is the case of the petitioners that the establishment and management of the institutions are governed and controlled by their respective Boards, namely, CBSE, SEBA and AHSEC etc. It is contended that the impugned Act would give unguided, uncontrolled and arbitrary powers to certain officers of the Government which are constitutionally invalid and therefore the present challenge has been instituted. It is also submitted that the Act is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments.

3. We have heard Shri J. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1891/2008. However, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C)/199/2016. We have also heard Shri N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

4. Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Act in question are unreasonable and arbitrary whereby an unbridled power has been given mainly to the Director whereby the autonomy of the institutions would be put to peril.

5. He has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to the aspect that the institutions are required to be registered which, according to the petitioner is an onerous burden and is not connected with the objective of the institutions to impart education. He has also submitted that the Act in question prescribes for reserving 5% of seats for meritorious students coming from the weaker section of the society. He has submitted that such reservation would also overlap with the requirement of law under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter the RTE Act) which provides for having a reservation up to 25%. He has submitted that the fee structure of the respective schools cannot be the aspect of determination of the State as the same depends on the working pattern of the respective schools in question. He has also submitted that under Section 3(1), the State Government has been given powers to regulate the functioning of the institution which would hamper in the day-to-day functioning and would also invite unnecessary interference by the Directorate. He has submitted that a statute has to pass the test of reasonableness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which has not been able to be done by the impugned Act and accordingly, the same is liable to be declared as ultra-vires. He has also submitted that vide an order dated 22.02.2016, there is a direction of this Court in the present proceeding not to insist on the registration of the Institutions.

6. Per contra, Shri N. J. Khataniar, learned, Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that for all legislations, there is a presumption towards its validity and the onus is upon any person who challenges the same on the ground that the same is constitutionally invalid. He has submitted that no grounds have been able to be demonstrated to show that the Act in question is unreasonable or arbitrary.

7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of objects and reasons of the Act,