Supreme Court Curbs Executive Power in Extending Educational Regulations

The Supreme Court of India recently handed down a significant judgment limiting the extent of executive power under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The case involved appeals against a High Court decision upholding a government notification that amended regulations governing unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh.

Background of the Case

The appeals challenged a 2018 notification issued under Section 87 of the 1966 Act, which extended the Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 (the 2016 Act) to Chandigarh with certain modifications. The appellants specifically challenged two clauses:

• Clause (a): Mandating unaided institutions to upload their financial statements on their websites.
• Paragraph 8: Increasing penalties for violations of the 2016 Act.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding the authority competent to issue the notification. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court carefully considered the scope of "restrictions or modifications" permitted under Section 87 of the 1966 Act, referencing its previous judgment in Lachmi Narain v. Union of India (1976 (2) SCC 953). This precedent established that such modifications must be "peripheral or insubstantial," maintaining the essence of the original enactment.

The Court held that Clause (a), mandating the online publication of financial information, was a substantial change not permissible under Section 87. The 2016 Act contained no such provision. The Court reasoned that this requirement constituted a substantive alteration, exceeding the authority granted under Section 87. Therefore, this clause was struck down as ultra vires .

In contrast, the Court upheld the challenge to Clause (b), which prohibited unaided institutions from charging parents any costs beyond the disclosed fee structure. It found this consistent with the legislative intent of the 2016 Act, viewing it as a clarification rather than a substantial alteration.

The Court also struck down paragraph 8, which increased penalties. It reasoned that determining the quantum of penalties is a legislative function, not an executive one under Section 87, and thus this modification constituted a substantial change.

Implications of the Decision

This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation and application of Section 87 of the 1966 Act. It clarifies the boundaries of executive power in extending and modifying legislation, emphasizing the need to preserve the essential policy and substance of the original enactment. The decision underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding against the overreach of executive authority. The Court's careful analysis distinguishes between substantial and insubstantial changes, providing valuable guidance for future cases involving similar legal issues. Finally, the court expunged certain observations made against a petitioner in the High Court's original judgement.