http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1987

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2034            1987 SCR  (3) 949  1987 SCC  (4) 671        JT 1987 (3)   424  1987 SCALE  (2)289  CITATOR INFO :  R          1991 SC2230  (4)

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950---Entry 66 List I and  Entry 25  List  III--Seventh  Schedule--Education--Whether   State competent to legislate on subject falling within List I.     Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education  Act, 1986---Validity  of--Whether Act within  legislative  compe- tence of State Legislature.

HEADNOTE:     The  Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher  Education Act,  1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) providing for the  constitu- tion  of a Commissionerate to advise the Government in  mat- ters relating to Higher Education in the State and to  over- see  its development with perspective planning and for  mat- ters  connected  therewith  and incidental  thereto  and  to perform  all  functions necessary for  the  furtherance  and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher  educa- tion in the State was enacted on the basis of the  recommen- dations  of a high power committee constituted by the  State Government to study the Higher Education system in the State with  special reference to its curricula, courses of  study, finance and management.     The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in  the High Court which, while upholding it, held that the Act fell under  Entry  25 List III--Concurrent List  of  the  Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.     In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of  the appellant that the Act was just a duplicate  of  the University Grants Commission Act and the State had no legis- lative power at all to enact it since it squarely fell under Entry  66  List I. On behalf of the Staterespondent  it  was submitted  that  the enactment in pith  and  substance  fell within Entry 25 of List III and not under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Allowing the appeals, this Court, 950     HELD:  1.1 Entry 25 List III relating to  education  in- cluding technical education, medical education and Universi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

ties  had  been made subject to the power of  Parliament  to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry 66 List  I and  Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read  together. [955F-G]     1.2  Entry  66 gives power to the Union to  see  that  a required  standard  of higher education in  the  country  is maintained.  The  standard  of  Higher  Education  including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the  hands of  any  particular  State or States. It  is  the  exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate  and determine  the  standards for higher education.  That  power includes the power to evaluate, harmonise and secure  proper relationship  to any project of national importance.  It  is needless  to state, that such a coordinate action in  higher education with proper standards, is of paramount  importance to  national progress. It is in this national interest,  the legislative field in regard to ’education’ has been distrib- uted  between List 1 and List 111 of the  Seventh  Schedule. ]955G-H; 956A-B]     1.3  Parliament  has exclusive power to  legislate  with respect  to  matters included in List I. The  State  has  no power at all in regard to such matters. If the State  legis- lates  on  the subject failing within List I  that  will  be void, inoperative and unenforceable. [956B]     1.4 The Commissionerate Act has been drawn by and  large in the same terms as that of the U.G.C. Act. Both the enact- ments  deal  with  the co-ordination  and  determination  of excellence  in the standards of teaching and examination  in the  Universities.  Here and there, some of  the  words  and sentences  used in the Commissionerate Act may be  different from  those  used  in the UGC Act,  but  nevertheless,  they convey the same meaning. It is just like referring the  same person with different descriptions and names. [966B-D]     1.5 The High Court has gone on a tangent, and would  not have fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act as a whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or  vice- versa. [966D]     1.6 The Commissionerate Act contains sweeping provisions encroaching on the autonomy of the Universities. The Commis- sionerate has practically taken over the academic  programme and  activities of the universities. The  universities  have been rendered irrelevant if not nonentities. [965D; 966A-B] 1.7  It  is  unthinkable as to how the State  could  pass  a parallel 951 enactment  under Entry 25 of List III, unless it  encroaches Entry 66 of List I Such an encroachment is patent and  obvi- ous.  The  Commissionerate  Act is  beyond  the  legislative competence  of the State Legislature and is hereby  declared void and inoperative. [966E-F]     1.8  The  Constitution of India  vests  Parliament  with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination and  determi- nation  of standards in institutions for  higher  education. The Parliament has enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater  role to  play  in shaping the academic life of  the  country.  It shall  not  falter or fail in its duty to  maintain  a  high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life  on high standards of general, vocational  and  profes- sional education. Dissemination of learning with search  for new  knowledge with discipline all round must be  maintained at all costs. [967D-E]     The University Grants Commission, it is hoped will  duly discharge  its  responsibility  to the Nation  and  play  an increasing role to bring about the needed transformation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

the academic life of the Universities. [967E-F]     Kerala  State  Electricity  Board  v.  Indian  Aluminium Company, [1976] 1 SCR 552; Gujarat University, Ahmedabad  v. Krishna  Ranganath,  [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 112;  DAV  College, Bhatinda  etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1971] Suppl.  SCR 677; R. Chitralekha & Ant. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1964] 6  SCR 368; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu  Narendranath  & Ors, etc., [1971] 3 SCR 699; Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 and Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, [1984] 2 SCR 883, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1205-06 of 1987.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 24.3.  1987  of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court in Writ Petition  No.  15582  of 1986.     Dr.  Y.S. Chitale, B. Parthasarathy and  K.V.  Sreekumar for the Appellant.     T.S.  Krishnamurthy Iyer, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. V.  Grover and Ms. Sunita M. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 952     JAGANNATHA  SHETTY,  J.  This appeal  on  a  certificate raises a short but an important question as to the Constitu- tional  validity  of the Andhra Pradesh  Commissionerate  of Higher  Education  Act, 1986 (Act No. 26  of  1986)  (called shortly "The Commissionerate Act"). The question is  whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I or Entry 25  List III--Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the  Consti- tution.  The  High Court of Andhra Pradesh  has  upheld  its validity  by  holding that the Act falls  under  the  latter Entry, but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.     The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommenda- tions  of  a high power committee constituted by  the  State Government to study the higher education system in the State of  Andhra Pradesh with special reference to its  curricula, courses  of study, finance and management. The Committee  in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter-alia, that  there is no proper coordination and academic  planning among  the various bodies like Universities, Directorate  of Higher Education and University Grants Commission etc. There is no policy perspective in the development of higher educa- tion system. The Committee said that in order to  streamline the  general working and oversee the development  of  higher education  in the State, there is need to constitute a  Com- mission to advise the Government in that matter.     The Government appears to have accepted the said  report of  the Committee. That is obvious from the Preamble to  the Commissionerate  Act. It states that "Act is to provide  for the Constitution of a Commissionerate to advise the  Govern- ment  in matters relating to Higher Education in  the  State and to oversee its development with perspective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."     Section 2(e) defines "Higher Education" to mean interme- diate  education and education leading to a degree  or  post graduate degree including professional and technical  educa- tion.     Section  2(c)  defines  "Commissionerate"  to  mean  the Andhra  Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education  consti- tuted  under  subsection (1) of Section 3.  Thereunder,  the Commissionerate  has been constituted as a  Corporate  body.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

The  composition  of the Commissionerate is  provided  under Section  4. The Commissionerate shall consist  of  Chairman, Vice-Chairman and not more than 10 members [Section 953 4(1)]. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be appointed by the Government [Section 4(2)]. Of the ten members of  the Commission, three are Secretaries to the Government:  Educa- tion  Secretary, Labour Secretary and Finance  and  Planning Secretary. Four of them shall be representing Professors and Vice-Chancellors  of any of the Universities in  the  State. One shall represent industry and commerce, and another shall represent  engineering  or legal or medical  education.  The last  one shall be a distinguised educationalist. All  these persons  are  to be appointed only by  the  Government.  The Chairman  and ViceChairman shall be whole time and  salaried persons  and their terms and conditions are  provided  under Section 5(1).     Section  9  gives  overriding effect and  power  to  the Commissionerate  over all other authorities and bodies  con- nected with the Higher Education in the State. Section  9(1) provides:               "With  effect on and from the Constitution  of               the  Commissionerate under Section 3 and  not-               withstanding anything contained in the  Andhra               Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971,  and               the  Andhra Pradesh. Education Act, 1982,               the  Director of Higher Education, the  Secre-               tary, Board of Intermediate Education and  the               Secretary to the Board of Technical  Education               shall  function under the administrative  con-               trol of the Commissionerate."     Section 9(2) provides power to the Government to appoint a Secretary to the Commissionerate. Rest of the Officers and employees  are  to  be appointed from time to  time  by  the Commissionerate  but with the previous approval of the  Gov- ernment.     The Central power of the Commissionerate has been locat- ed  in  Section  11. We may give the gist of  it  here.  The Commissionerate shall                   (i)  evolve  a perspective  plan  for  the               development, of Higher Education in the State;                  (ii)  monitor  and  evaluate  the  academic               programmes  in  higher education  and  enforce               accountability in the system;                  (iii)   establish  and  develop   resources               centre for curriculam materials and continuing               education of teachers;                  (iv) co-ordinate the academic activities of               various  institutions of higher  education  in               the State;               954               (v) undertake examination reforms;                   (vi) establish linkages between  Universi-               ties  industries  and  community   development               organisations:                  (vii) transfer teachers appointed in  aided               posts from one aided private college to anoth-               er  such college subject to such rules as  may               be  made by the Government in this behalf  and               generally encourage mobility of teachers;and                  (viii)  perform any other functions  neces-               sary  for the furtherance and  maintenance  of               excellence  in the standards of higher  educa-               tion in the State.               Section 11(2) provides:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

             "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law               relating  to  Universities in the  State,  the               Board of Intermediate Education Act, 1971  and               the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982,  every               University  or  college  including  a  private               college  in the State shall obtain  the  prior               approval of the Commissionerate in regard to--               (i) creation of new posts;               (ii) financial management; and               (iii)  starting  of  new  higher   educational               institutions.     Section  13  is another important Section.  It  provides power for inspection for ascertaining the financial needs of a  University or its standards of teaching, examination  and research.  The  Commissionerate  shall  communicate  to  the University  its  views in regard to the result of  any  such inspection  and may, after ascertaining the opinion  of  the University,  recommend  to the University the action  to  be taken  as  a result of such inspection  and  the  University shall comply with any such direction.     Section  16  states that the  Commissionerate  shall  be guided by such directions issued by the Government on  ques- tions of policy relating to State purposes or in case of any emergency  as may be given to it by the Government.  Section 18  confers power to the Government to make rules  to  carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section 19 955 provides  power to the Commissionerate to  make  regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder.     The sole contention of Dr. Chitale, learned counsel  for the  appellant  is that the Commissionerate Act  is  just  a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act ("The  UGC Act") and the State has no legislative power at all to enact it,  since it squarely falls under Entry 66 List I. But  the contention  of Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned  counsel  for the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh, is to  the  contrary.  While supporting  the  judgement of the High Court,  he  submitted that the enactment in pith and substance falls within  Entry 25  of  List  III and not under Entry 66 of List  I  of  the Seventh  Schedule. For proper consideration of  the  conten- tions we may set out these two Entries: Entry 66 List I: "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education or research and scientific and  techni- cal institutions." Entry 25 List III: "Education, including technical education, medical education and  universities, subject to the provisions of entries  63, 64, 65 & 66 of List I, vocational and technical training  of labour."     Till  January  3, 1977, Education was  a  State  subject under Entry 11 in List II. By the 42nd Amendment Act,  1976, Entry  11  was deleted and it was placed in  the  Concurrent List by enlarging the Entry 25, as set out above.     Entry 25 List III relating to education including  tech- nical education, medical education and Universities has been made  subject to the power of Parliament to legislate  under Entries  63  to 66 of List I. Entry 66 List I and  Entry  25 List III should, therefore, be read together. Entry 66 gives power  to  Union to see that a required standard  of  higher education  in  the country is maintained.  The  standard  of Higher  Education including scientific and technical  should not  be  lowered  at the hands of any  particular  State  or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of  the Central  Government to co-ordinate and determine the  stand-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

ards for higher education. That power includes the power  to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any 956 project of national importance. It is needless to state that such  a  coordinate action in higher education  with  proper standards, is of paramount importance to national  progress. It  is in this national interest, the legislative  field  in regard  to ’education’ has been distributed between  List  I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.      The  Parliament has exclusive power to  legislate  with respect  to  matters included in List I. The  State  has  no power at all in regard to such matters. If the State  legis- lates  on  the subject falling within List I  that  will  be void, inoperative and unenforceable.      In  Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian  Aluminium Company, [1976] 1 SCR 552 this Court said:                         "The  power of Parliament to  legis-               late with respect to matters included in  List               I is supreme notwithstanding any         thing               contained in clause (3) (again leaving out  of               consi-           deration  the  provision   of               clause 2). Now what is the mean-           ing               of  the words "notwithstanding" in clause  (1)               and  "sub-         ject to" in clause 3;  They               mean    that    where   an   entry    is    in               general  terms  in List II and  part  of  that               entry  is  in specific  terms in List  I,  the               entry in List takes effect notwithstanding the               entry in List II. This is also on the  princi-               ple that the ’special’ excludes the  ’general’               entry  in  List II is subject to  the  special               entry in List I."                    We may now refer to some of the decisions               dealing with the inter action of Entry 66 List               I and Entry 25 List III. In Gujarat  Universi-               ty,  Ahmedabad  v. Krishna  Ranganath,  [1963]               Suppl.  1 SCR 112, 137. Shah J.  speaking  for               the  majority view of the  Constitution  Bench               observed:                        "Item  63 to 66 of List I are  carved               out of the subject of education and in respect               of  these  items  the power  to  legislate  is               vested  exclusively in the Parliament. Use  of               the expression "Subject to" in item 11 of List               II  of the Seventh Schedule clearly  indicates               that  legislation in respect of excluded  mat-               ters cannot be undertaken by the State  Legis-               latures. In Hingir Rampur Coal Co. v. State of               Orissa [1961] 2 SCR 537, this Court in consid-               ering  the import of the  expression  "Subject               to" used in an entry in List II in relation to               an entry in List I observed that to the extent               of  the restriction imposed by the use of  the               expression "subject to" in an entry in List II               the power is taken away from                957               the  State Legislature. Power of the State  to               Legislate  in respect of  education  including               Universities must to the extent to which it is               entrusted to the Union Parliament whether such               power  is  exercised or not, be deemed  to  be               restricted.  If  a subject of  legislation  is               covered by items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise               falls  within the larger field  of  "education               including Universities" power to legislate  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

             that subject must lie with the Parliament."     This  decision turned on the interpretation  of  Section 4(27)  of Gujarat University Act, and it was held  that  the University  has no power to prescribe Gujarati or  Hindi  as exclusive  medium  of instruction in higher  education.  The principles enunciated in the Krishna Rangnath case have been reiterated  in  D.A.V. College, Bhatinda etc.  v.  State  of Punjab & Ors., [1971] Suppl. SCR 677.     The  power of the State to prescribe certain  norms  for admission  to  colleges came for consideration  before  this Court  in R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. State of Mysore  &  Ors., [1964]  6  SCR 368 where Subba Rao J., as he then  was,  ob- served:               "that if the law made by the States by  virtue               of Entry 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule               to the Constitution makes impossible or diffi-               cult the exercise of the legislative power  of               the Parliament under the entry  "Co-ordination               and determination of standards in institutions               for higher education or research and scientif-               ic and technical institutions" reserved to the               Union,  the State law may be bad. This  cannot               obviously be decided on speculative and  hypo-               thetical reasoning. If the impact of the State               law  providing for such standards on entry  66               of  List  I is so heavy or devastating  as  to               wipe  out or appreciably abridge  the  central               field  it  may be struck down. But that  is  a               question  of  fact to be ascertained  in  each               case."     The  learned Judge, however, upheld the impugned  scheme of  the  State in that case for selection  of  students  ’to colleges  maintained  by the State since it was  found  that that  scheme only prescribed criteria for making  admissions to  colleges  from among students who  secured  the  minimum qualifying  marks prescribed by the University. It was  held that  the scheme did not encroach upon the field covered  by Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Similar  was  the view expressed by this Court in  State  of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu 958 Narendranath  &  Ors. etc., [1971] 3 SCR 699 and  in  Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400.     What do we have in the present case? There is no  scheme for admission to colleges. There is a corporate body  estab- lished  under  the State enactment with  powers  supreme  in regard  to  all matters pertaining to higher  education.  To mention  a few, the Commissionerate  constituted  thereunder shall  evolve  a  perspective plan for  the  development  of higher education in the State. It must monitor and  evaluate the  academic programmes. It must co-ordinate  the  academic activities of various institutions and universities. It must oversee the development and streamline the higher  education in  the entire State. It shall perform all functions  neces- sary  for .the furtherance and maintenance of excellence  in the  standards  of higher education in the  State.  It  also controls the entire fund meant for the universities  includ- ing grants given by the Central Government for higher educa- tion.     Since  it was argued that both these enactments  are  in parimateria,  it will be useful to compare the UGC Act  with the  corresponding provisions of the Commissionerate Act  by keeping them side by side: U.G.C. Act, 1956               The Commissionerate Act 1. Statement of Objects and reasons:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

"The Constitution of India      In order to bring a change vests Parliament with           in the higher education exclusive authority in          system in the State so as regard to Co-ordination         to make the courses of and determination of            study more relevant to the standards in institutions       needs of the modern society for higher education or         and to provide opportu- research and scientific         nities of earning and and technical instituti-        learning simultaneously ons. It is obvious              at college level to all the that neither coordination       students in the State, a nor determination of            four man committee was standards is possible           appointed in February, 1986 unless the Central              by the State Government to Government has some voice       study the higher education 959 in the determination of       system in the State with standards of teaching         special reference to curri- and examination in            cula and courses of studies, Universities, both old        Finance and Management in and new.                      the Higher Education system. 2. It is, therefore,           The Committee in its proposed to establish          report submitted to a University Grants            Government observed Commission as a                that there is no proper corporate body which           co-ordination and academic will inquire into the          planning among the various financial needs of             bodies like universities; universities and               the Directorate of Higher allocate and disburse          Eduation and the Univer- grants to Universities         sity Grants Commission etc. for any general or             and there is no policy specified purpose. The         perspective in the Commission will act as an      development of the expert body to advise          Higher Education system the Central Government         in the State and in order on problems connected          to streamline the general with the coordination of       working of the higher facilities and                 Education system in the maintenance of standards       State the Committee in Universities.               suggested to constitute The Commission, in consul-     a commission to advise tation with the University     the Government in connected, will also have      matters relating to the power to cause an          higher education in the inspection or inquiry to       State and to oversee be made of any university      its development. The established by law in          Government have examined India and to advise the        the above recommendations university on any matter       and suggestions and which has been the             decided to constitute subject of an inquiry or       a Commissionerate of inspection. The Commi-         Higher Education. ssion shall also advise, whenever such advise is sought, on the establish- ment of new Universities. 960 Sec. 4 Establishment of       Sec. 3. Constitution of the Commission:               Commissionerate of                               Higher Education: (1) With effect from such        The Government may, by date as the Central Govern-      notification, and with ment may, by notification        effect on and from such in the official Gazettee,        date as may be specified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

appoint, there shall be          therein constitute a established a Commission         Commissionerate for the by the name of the Univer-       purpose of this Act sity Grants Commission.          to be called The Andhra                                  Pradesh Commissionerate                                  of Higher Education. (2) The said Commission         (2) The Commissionerate shall be a body corporate       shall be a body corporate having perpetual                having perpetual success- succession and a common         ion and a common seal and seal, and shall by the          shall sue and be used said name sue and be sued.      by the said corporate name.                                 (2)(b) xxx    xxx    xxx Sec. 5 Composition of the      Sec. 4 Composition of the Commission:                    Comissionerate: (1) The Commission shall        (1) The Commissionerate consist of:--                   shall consist of:-- (i) A Chairman, and             (i) A Chairman (ii) A Vice-Chairman, and       (ii) A Vice-Chairman, and (iii) ten other members, to     (iii) not more than ten    be appointed by the          members to be appointed by    Central Government           the State Government Sec. 9 Temporary Associa-          Sec. 8 Temporary Associa- tion of person with the            tion of persons with the Commission for particular          Commissionerate for purpose                            particular purpose (Both these Sections are similar)  961 Sec. 12 Functions of the       Sec. 11 Powers and Functions Commission:                    of the Commissionerate It shall be the general duty  It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take,        of the Commissionerate to: in consultation with the Universities or other             a) evolve a prospective bodies. concerned, all            plan for the development such steps as it may              of higher education in the think fit for the                 State; promotion and co-ordi- nation of University              b) administer and release Education and for the             grants-in-aid to Univer- determination and main-           sities as private tenance of standards              colleges in the State and of teaching, examina-             report the same to the tion and research in              Government. University and for the purpose of performing             c) xxx     xxx     xxx its functions under this Act, the Commission          d) monitor and evaluate may:--                            the academic programmes                                   in higher education and                                   enforce accountability                                   in the system. a) Inquire into the finan-       e) xxx  xxx cial needs of Universities                                  f) xxx  xxx b) Allocate and disburse, out of the fund of the           g) co-ordinate the Commission, grants to            academic activities of Universities established         various institutions of or incorporated by or            higher education in the under a Central Act for          State. the maintenance and development of such              xxx     xxx universities or for any other general or             p) Perform any other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

specified purpose.               functions necessary to                                  the furtherance and c) Allocate and disburse         maintenance of excell- out of the fund of the           ence in the standards of Commission, such grants          higher education in the 962 to other Universities as       State, it may deem necessary or appropriate for the development of such Universities or for the maintenance, or development  or both, of any specified activities of such Universities or for any other general or  specified purpose recommended to any University the measure necessary for the improvement  of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the  purpose of implementing  such recommendations. Sec. 13 Inspection:             Sec. 13 Inspection: (1) For the purpose of          (1) For the purpose of ascertaining the finan-         ascertrining the financial cial needs of a Univer-         needs of a University or its sity or its standards of       standards of teaching, exami- teaching, examination and       nation and research. the research, the Commission        Commissionerate may, after may, after consultation with    consultation with the Uni- the University cause an         versity, cause an inspection inspection of any department    of any department or depart- or departments thereof to       ments thereof to be made in be made in such manner as       such manner as may be may be prescribed and by        prescribed and by such such person or persons as       person or persons as it may it may direct.                  direct. (2) The Commission             (2) The Commissionerate shall shall communicate to           communicate to the University the University the date        the date on which any inspec- on which any inspection        tion under sub-section (1) under sub-section (1) is       shall be made and the Univer- to be made and the             sity shall be entitled to be University shall be            associate with inspection 963 entitled to be associa-         in such manner as may be ted with the inspection         prescribed. in such manner as may be prescribed.               (3) The Commissionerate shall                               communicate to the University                                its views in regard to the                              result of any such inspection                                 and may, after ascertaining                               the opinion of the University,                                 recommend to the University,                                 the action to be taken as a                                 result of such inspection,                                 and the University shall                                 comply with any such                                 direction. Sec. 16 Fund of the          Sec. 12 Fund of the Commission                   Commissionerate: (1) The Commission shall    (1) The Commissionerate shall have its own fund and           have its own fund consisting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

all sum which may, from        of the grants from Government time to time, be paid          voted by the Legislative Ass- to it by the Central            embly of the State towards Government and all the          grants to Universities, and receipts of the Commi-          aided Junior and Degree ssion (including any            Colleges and grants received sum which any State             from Central Government for Government or any other         higher education. authority or person may handover to the Commi-          (2) All moneys belonging to ssion) shall be carried         the Fund shall be deposited to the fund and all             in such banks or invested in payments by the                 such manner as may, subject Commission shall be             to the approval of the made therefrom.               Government, be decided by the                                 Commissionerate. (2) All moneys belong- ing to the fund shall          (3) The Commissionerate may be deposited in such           spend such sums as it thinks banks or invested in           fit for performing its such manner as may,            functions under this Act, subject to the approval        and such sums shall be 964 of the Central Govern-        treated as expenditure ment be decided by            payable out of the fund the Commission.              of the Commissionerate. (3) The Commission may spend such sums as it thinks fit for  performing its functions under this Act, and such sums shall be treated as expenditure payable out of the fund of the  Commission. Sec. 18 Annual Report          Sec. 14 Annual Report The Commission shall           The Commissionerate shall prepare, once in every          prepare once in every year, year in such form and at      in such form and at such time such time as may be           as may be prescribed an Annual prescribed, an annual          Report giving a true and full report giving a true and       account of its activities full account of its acti-      during the previous year, vities during the previous     and copies thereof shall be year, and copies thereof       forwarded to the Government shah be forwarded to the          and the Government shall Central Government and the        cause the same to be laid Government shall cause the        before the Legislative same to be laid before            Assembly of the State. both Houses of Parliament. Sec. 19 Accounts & Audit        Sec. 15 Accounts & Audit Sec. 20 Directions by         Sec. 16 Directions by the the Central Government        Governments (1) In the discharge of       (1) In the discharge of its functions under this      its functions under this Act, Act. the Commission shall     the Commissionerate shall be be guided by such direc-      guided by such directions tions on questions of         on question of policy policy relating to            relating to State purposes national purposes as may      or in case of any emergency as be given to it by the         may be given to it by the 965 Central Government.            Government. (2) If any dispute arises       (2) If any dispute arises between the Central             between the Government Government and the Commi-       and the Commissionerate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

ssion as to whether a           as to whether a question question is or is not a         is or is not a question of question of policy              policy relating to State relating to national            purposes, or whether an purposes the decision of        emergency has arisen, the the Central Government          decision of the Government shall be final.                 thereon shall be final. Sec. 25 Power to make Rules     Sec. 18 Power to make Rules Sec. 26 Power to make        Sec. 19 Power to make Regulations.                 Regulations."     We have extracted only such of the provisions similar to those contained in the UGC Act. That is not all. The Commis- sionerate  Act yet contains sweeping provisions  encroaching on the autonomy of the Universities. Under Section  ll(1)(c) it is for the Commissionerate to decide on the need for, and location  of  new colleges and courses  of  study  including Engineering Colleges. Section 11(1)(f) provides power to the Commissionerate  to establish and develop  resources  centre for curriculuam materials and continuing education of teach- ers.  Section 11(1)(g) confers power on the  Commissionerate to  coordinate the academic activities of  various  institu- tions of higher education in the State. It is also the  duty of the Commissionerate to undertake examination reforms  and assume  accreditation  functions [Section 11(1)(h)  &  (i)]. Section  11(1)(j) states that it is the duty of the  Commis- sionerate  to organise entrance test for  University  admis- sion.  Section 11(1)(k) states that it shall administer  and grant  scholarship and organise work study programmes.  Sec- tion  11(1)(0) provides power to transfer teachers from  one aided  private college to another such college,  subject  to the rules made by the Government. There is yet a devastating provision  on the autonomy of Universities.   section  11(2) states  that every University or College including the  pri- vate college shall obtain the prior approval of the  Commis- sionerate  in  regard to: (i) creation of  new  posts;  (ii) financial  management;  and  (iii) starting  of  new  higher educational  institutions. This ’Super Power’ has been  pre- served  to  the  Commissionerate  notwithstanding   anything contained in any law relating to Universities in the  State, the Board of Intermediate Education 966 Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.     It will be seen that the Commissionerate has practically taken  over  the academic programmes and activities  of  the Universities. The Universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-entities.     It is apparent from this discussion that the Commission- erate  Act has been drawn by and large in the same terms  as that of the U.G.C. Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we  have earlier  seen also contains some more provisions.  Both  the enactments, however, deal with the same subject matter. Both deal with the co-ordination and determination of  excellence in the standards of teaching and examination in the  Univer- sities. Here and there, some of the words and sentences used in the Commissionerate Act may be different from those  used in  the  UGC  Act, but nevertheless, they  convey  the  same meaning.  It  is just like referring the  same  person  with different  descriptions  and  names. The  intention  of  the legislature  has to be gathered by reading the statute as  a whole.  That is a rule which is now firmly  established  for the  purpose  of construction of statutes.  The  High  Court appears to have gone on a tangent. The High Court would  not have fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act as a whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or  vice- cersa.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

   In  Prem  Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, [1984] 2  SCR  883 this Court has held that the UGC Act falls under Entry 66 of List  I.  It is then unthinkable as to how the  State  could pass a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List III, unless it  encroaches Entry 66 of List I. Such an  encroachment  is patent  and obvious. The Commissionerate Act is  beyond  the legislative  competence  of  the State  Legislature  and  is hereby declared void and inoperative.     In the result, these appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment  of  the High Court is reversed. There shall  be  a direction to the State not to enforce the provisions of  the impugned Act.     Before parting with the case we may say a word more. The impugned  Act was the result of a report from a  High  Power Committee constituted by the State Government. The Committee went into the affairs of the higher education in the  State. The Committee examined among other things, the curricula and courses of studies. The Committee found as a fact that there is  no proper coordination and academic planning  among  the various  bodies. It recommended to the State Government  the need to pass a proper legislation to stream- 967 line the higher education. The State Government accepted the recommendations and passed the Act in question. The Act  now disappears  for want of legislation competence.  What  about the  need to enact that Act? It will not vanish to the  thin air.  The  defects and deficiency pointed out  by  the  High Power  Committee in regard to higher education may  continue to remain to the detriment of the interest of the State  and the Nation. Such defects in the higher education may not  be an isolated feature only in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  It may be a common feature in some other States as well.     That  apart, we often hear and read in news papers  with disgust  about the question papers leakage and mass  copying in the University examinations. It has stripped the  univer- sity degrees of all its credibility. He indeed must be blind who  does not see what is all happening in some of the  Uni- versities.     The  Constitution of India vests Parliament with  exclu- sive authority in regard to co-ordination and  determination of  standards  in  institutions for  higher  education.  The Parliament  has  enacted the UGC Act for that  purpose.  The University Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater  role to  play  in shaping the academic life of  the  country.  It shall  not  falter or fail in its duty to  maintain  a  high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on a high standards of general, vocational and  profes- sional education. Dissemination of learning with search  for new  knowledge with discipline all round must be  maintained at all costs. It is hoped that University Grants  Commission will  duly  discharge its responsibility to the  Nation  and play an increasing to role bring about the needed  transfor- mation in the academic life of the Universities. N.P.V.                                          Appeal   al- lowed. 968