1969 Supreme(Ker) 154

Kerala High Court
P.T.RAMAN NAYAR,P.GOVINDAN NAIR,V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR
V.Rev.Mother Provincial, Congregation of Mother of Carmel, Carmelite Provincial House, Kovilvattam Road, Ernakulam - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Trivandrum - Respondent
Decided On : 09/19/1969

Headnote:

The Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act) was challenged by private colleges in the State of Kerala on the grounds that certain provisions of the Act violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 26, and 31 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Act violated their right to administer their colleges, which they claimed was a fundamental right protected by Article 19(1)(f). The State Government and the University of Kerala defended the Act, arguing that the provisions in question were necessary to regulate the management of private colleges in the public interest. The Court held that the right to administer a college is not a fundamental right protected by Article 19(1)(f) but is a right that can be regulated by the State in the public interest. The Court also held that the provisions of the Act that were challenged did not violate the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 26, or 31. However, the Court did strike down certain provisions of the Act that it found to be unreasonable and excessive. The Court held that the provisions of the Act that required the appointment of a manager by the educational agency and that gave the University the power to take over the management of a college in certain circumstances were valid. However, the Court held that the provisions of the Act that restricted the appointment of the principal of a college to teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, and that required the approval of the University for the appointment of teachers were invalid. The Court also held that the provision of the Act that allowed teachers to stand for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State or to Parliament or to any local authority, while continuing as teachers, was invalid.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners in these applications brought under Article 226 of the Constitution are persons running affiliated private colleges in the districts to which the Kerala University Act, 1969 (for short, the 'Act') applies, namely, the revenue districts of Trivandrum, Quilon, Alleppey, Kottayam and Ernakulam. The colleges, all of which receive aid out of State funds and all of which are open to the general public, belong to the petitioners in the sense that legal title to, though perhaps no beneficial interest in, what are ordinarily regarded as the properties of a college, namely, the lands and buildings and other properties, moveable and immoveable, required to run it, vests in them. The petitioners assail certain provisions of Chapters VIII and IX of the Act on the score that these provisions are violative of the fundamental rights vouchsafed by Articles 14, 19 (1) (f), 26 and 31 of the Constitution. By far the majority of the petitioners (thirty-three out of thirty-six) run what might be called minority institutions, those running what might be called majority institutions being in a very small minority. The petitioners running the minority institutions rely also on Article 30 (1)-that indeed is their principal weapon or attack.

Finding of the Court:

We think that, subject to what we have to say with regard to sub-sections (2) and (4) of the sections, these contentions proceed on a misconception of the true scope and effect of Sections 48 and 49 which, it seems to us, have been better understood by the respondents than by the petitioners. We see nothing in these sections which deprives the petitioners of their property or of the possession thereof - the right of administration conferred on the managing body does not involve the right to legal possession which remains with the petitioners. And even the right of administration or management really remains with the petitioners subject only to regulation for the better running of the institutions concerned.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1969 (Act) violated the fundamental rights of private colleges under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 26, and 31 of the Indian Constitution. 2. Whether the right to administer a college is a fundamental right protected by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the provisions of the Act that restricted the appointment of the principal of a college to teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, and that required the approval of the University for the appointment of teachers were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to administer a college is not a fundamental right protected by Article 19(1)(f) but is a right that can be regulated by the State in the public interest. 2. The provisions of the Act that were challenged did not violate the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 26, or 31. 3. The provisions of the Act that required the appointment of a manager by the educational agency and that gave the University the power to take over the management of a college in certain circumstances were valid. 4. The provisions of the Act that restricted the appointment of the principal of a college to teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, and that required the approval of the University for the appointment of teachers were invalid. 5. The provision of the Act that allowed teachers to stand for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State or to Parliament or to any local authority, while continuing as teachers, was invalid.

Final Decision: The Court held that the provisions of the Act that were challenged did not violate the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 26, or 31. However, the Court did strike down certain provisions of the Act that it found to be unreasonable and excessive.