10 August 1970
Supreme Court


Case number: Appeal (civil) 2598 of 1969






DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/1970


CITATION:  1970 AIR 2079            1971 SCR  (1) 734  1970 SCC  (2) 417  CITATOR INFO :  R          1974 SC1389  (18,27,28,41,52,85,101,102,109  RF         1975 SC1821  (23,25,28,29,38,40)  RF         1979 SC  52  (35)  R          1979 SC  83  (5)  RF         1980 SC1042  (2,3,12,36,44,81,95,108)  R          1983 SC   1  (142)  E&R        1987 SC 311  (10,11,17,18)  RF         1987 SC1210  (9)  D          1988 SC 305  (7,16)  R          1990 SC 695  (5,6)

ACT: Kerala  University Act 9 of 1969-Ss. 48, 49, 53, 56, 58  and 63-Constitutional  validity  of-Constitution  of  India-Art. 30(1)-Scope of

HEADNOTE: The Kerala University Act 1969 was passed to reorganise  the University of Kerala with a view to establishing a teaching, residential  and  affiliating University  for  the  southern districts  of the State of Kerala.  Some of  its  provisions affected  private  colleges, particularly those  founded  by minority  communities  in the State.   Their  constitutional validity was challenged by some members of those communities on  various  grounds  in writ petitions filed  in  the  High Court. The  provisions  challenged were mainly those  contained  in Chapters  VIII  &  IX  of the Act.  By ss.  48  and  49,  an ’Educational   Agency’   which  had  established   and   was maintaining  a private college or a  ’corporate  management’ which  was  managing  more than one  private  college,  were required to set up a governing body for a private college or a managing council for private colleges under one  corporate management.   The sections provided for the  composition  of the  two  bodies which were to include  the  Principals  and managers  of  the  private colleges,  and  nominees  of  the University    and   Government,   as   well    as    elected



representatives of ,teachers.  Sub-section (2) provided, for the  new bodies becoming bodies corporate  having  perpetual succession and a common seal.  Sub-section (4) provided that the  members  would hold office for four years and  by  sub- section  (5)  of  each section a duty was cast  on  the  new governing  body or the managing council ’to administer’  the private   college  or  colleges  in  accordance   with   the provisions of the Act.  Sub-section (6) in each section laid down  that the powers and functions of the new  bodies,  the removal of members thereof and the procedure to be  followed by them, shall be prescribed by statutes. The  petitioners  challenged  the provisions  of  these  two sections  as also inter alia those of (a) sub-sections  (1), (2),  (3) and (9) of s. 53 which conferred on the  Syndicate of  the University the Power to -veto the decisions  of  the governing  council;  and  a right of appeal  to  any  person aggrieved  by their action; (b) section 56, which  conferred ultimate  power  on  the University  and  the  Syndicate  in disciplinary  matters  in respect of teachers:  (c)  s.  58, which  removed membership of the Legislative Assembly  as  a disqualification  for  teachers;  and  (d)  s.63   (I)-Which provided that whenever government was satisfied that a grave situation had arisen in the working of a private college, it could  inter  alia,  appoint the University  to  manage  the affairs of such private college for a temporary period.   It was  contended  that these provisions of the  new  Act  were violative  of Article 30, which protects the rights  of  the minorities   to   establish   and   administer   educational institutions of their choice as also Articles 19(1) (f), and 14 of the Constitution. 735 The High Court allowed the writ petitions and declared  some of  the  provisions of the Act invalid.  On appeal  to  this Court, HELD:  The High Court was right in holding that sub-ss.  (2) and (4) of ss. .48 and 49 are ultra vires Art. 30(1).   Sub- section  (6)  of each of these two sections are  also  ultra vires  : they offend more than the other two of  which  they are  a  part and parcel.  The High Court was also  right  in declaring  that sub-ss. (1), (2), (9) and of s. 53,  sub-ss. (2)  and (4) of s. 56, are ultra vires as they  fall  within ss.  48  and  49;  that  s. 58 (in  so  far  as  it  removes disqualification  which the founders may not like  to  agree to,  and s. 63 are ultra vires Art. 30(1) in respect of  the minority institutions. [746 E] It is obvious that after the erection of the governing  body or  the managing council the founders or even  the  minority community had no hand in the administration.  The two bodies are   vested  with  the  complete  administration   of   the institutions and were not answerable to the founders in this respect.  Sub-sections(2), (4), (5) and (6) of ss. 48 and 49 clearly vest the management and administration in the  hands of the two bodies with mandates from the University. [743 Al Coupled  with this is the power of the  Vice-Chancellor  and the Syndicate under subsections (2) and (4) of s. 56 to have the final say in respect of disciplinary proceedings against teachers. [744 B] Furthermore,   the  provisions  of  s.58  granting   special privileges  to  teachers who happened to be members  of  the Legislative Assembly enabled political parties to come  into the picture of administration of minority institutions,  and coupled  with  the  choice  of  nominated  members  left  to Government  and the University under ss. 48 and 49,  it  was clear there was much room for interference by persons  other than  those  in  whom  the  founding  community  would  have



confidence. [745 A] The  provisions of s. 63 laid down elaborate  procedure  for management  of the private colleges in which  the  governing body  or managing Council would have no say.   Further  more sub-section  63  (I)  involved  the  transfer  of  right  to possession  of the properties to the University.   The  High Court  rightly  pointed out that this section  provides  for compulsory  requisition of the properties within Art.  31(2) and (2A).  To be effective the, section required the  assent of  the President under sub-s. (3) and it was not  obtained. Therefore   the   saving   in  Art  31A   (1)(b)   was   not available.[746 A] [The Court expressed no opinion regarding sub. ss. (1), (2), (3) and (9)    of  s. 53 and sub.-ss. (2) and (4) of  s.  56 vis-a-vis Art. 30.  The court did  not go into the  question of invalidity of the provisions under Art. 19(1) (f)].  [746 F] Propositions established in the following cases referred  to and applied State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society. [1955] I S.C.R. 568;The  State of Madras V. S. C. Dorairajan  [1951]  S.C.R. 525; Sidharajbhal v. State of Gujarati [1963] 3 S.C.R.  837; Katra Education Society v. State of     U.P. and Ors, [1966] 3.S.C.R.  ’ 328; In re the,Kerala Education Bill [1959]  S.C R.  995; Gujarat University Ahmedabad v.  Krishna  Ranganath Mudhotkar  and  others  [1963] Supp. I  S.C.  R.  112;  Rev. Father  ’W.’  Proost and Ors. v. State of Bihar,  [1969]  2- S.C.R. 73, referred to. 736

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  259  to 2600 of 1969 and 21 to 53, 155 to 190, 199, 200 to 203, 273 -and 324 of 1970. Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 19, 1969 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. 1450 of 1969 etc. Mohan  Kumaramangalam, K. S. Paripooram, R. K. Garg, .S.  C. Agarwala  and  M R. K. Pillai, for the appellant  (in  C.As. Nos. 2598 to 2600 of 1969 and 21 to 53 of 1970). Mohan Kumaramangalam, K. S. Paripoornam and M. R. K.  Pillai for  the  respondent (in C.A. Nos. 155 to 190, 199,  200  to 203, 273 and 324 of 1970). A.  K.  Sen,  P. C. Chandi,  Joseph  Vithayathil,  Bhuvanesh Kumari, R. N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur-  and Ravinder Kumar, for the appellant (in, C.As. Nos. 200 to 202 of 1970), respondent no. 1 (C.A. Nos. 2598 to 2600 of 1969), respondent  no. 1 (in C.A. No. 21, 22, 26, 31, 32,  36,  37, 39, 43, 52, 156 to 158, 187, 160 to 164, 167, 168, 172, 173, 170, 165 to    181, 1839 186 and 189 of 1970). Frank   Anthony,  P.  C.  Chandi,  Joseph  Vithayathil,   E. C.Agarwal,   Bhuvanesh  Kumari,  R.  N.  Banerjee,   J.   B. Dadachanji,  ,O.   C. Mathur and Ravinder  Narain,  for  the appellant (in C.A. No. 203 of 1970) and respondent no. 1 (in C.A. Nos. 48 and 184 of 1970). Frank  Anthony, P. C. Chandi, A. T. M. Sampath, S. R.  Agar- wala and E. C. Agarwala, for respondent No. 1 (in C. A. Nos. 23 & 159 of 1970). M.   C.  Setalvad, V. A. S. Muhammad, and A.S. Nambiar,  for the appellant (in C.A. No. 199 of 1970) and respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 174 and 185 of 1970). M. C. Setalvad and A. Sreedharan Nambiar, for the  appellant -(in C.A. No. 273 of 1970). A. Sreedharan Nambiar, for respondent No. 1 (in, C.A. No. 38



-of 1970). R.  Gopalakrishnan,  for the appellant (in C.A. No.  324  of 1970)     and respondent no.  I (in C.A. No. 33 of 1970). M.  K. Nambyar, N. A. Subramanian and P. K. Pillai, for  the appellant (in C.As. Nos. 155 to 190 and 199 of 1970) and the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 2598 to 2600 of 1969 and 21 to  53, 200 to 203, 273 and 324 of 1970). 737 A.  S.  R. Chari, N. Sudhakaran and K. M. K. Nair,  for  the intervener (in C.As. No. 199 to 203 of 1970). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. These appeals by certificates granted  by the  High Court of Kerala under Arts. 132(1) and  13.3(1)(c) of the Constitution are directed against a common  judgment, September  19,  1969, declaring certain  provisions  of  the Kerala  University  Act, 1969 (Act 9 of 1969)  to  be  ultra vires   the  Constitution  of  India  while  upholding   the remaining  Act  as valid.  They were heard  together.   This judgment will dispose of all of them-.  ’The validity of the Act was challenged in the High Court by diverse  petitioners in  36  petitions under Art 226 of the  Constitution.   Some parts of the Act were declared ultra vires the  Constitution As  a result there are cross appeals. 36 appeals  have  been filed  against  the  several petitioners  by  the  State  of Kerala.    Another  36  appeals  have  been  filed  by   the University  of  Kerala  which made  common  cause  with  the Government of Kerala. 7 appeals have been preferred by seven original petitioners, who seek a declaration that some other provisions  of the Act, upheld by the High Court  as  valid, are also void. The Kerala University Act 1969 (which repealed and  replaced the  Kerala University Act 1957 (Act 14 of 1957) was  passed to  reorganise  the  University of Kerala  with  a  view  to establishing   a  teaching,  residential   and   affiliating University  for  the  southern districts  of  the  State  of Kerala.   Some of its provisions affected private  colleges, particularly  those founded by minority communities  in  the State.   They  ’were  consequently  challenged  of   various grounds.  The petitions were consolidated in the High  Court and were decided by the judgment and order under appeal. Before  we begin to discuss these appeals we may say  a  few words  about  them.  33  petitioners  belong  to   different denominations of the Christian community; 8 are Superiors of different  Catholic Religious Congregations; 8 are  Catholic Bishops  representing  their  dioceses;  3  are  Vicars   of Catholic parishes; 5 are Boards of Associations  constituted by   different  Catholic  denominations   for   establishing colleges  and  other  educational  institutions  and  3  are Bishops  of the Malankara Orthodox Church. 4 petitions  have been filed by the Metropolitan of the Marthoma Syrian Church and  2 by the Madhya Kerala Diocese of the Church  of  South India.   The remaining 3 petitions are respectively by  pri- vate  colleges  founded  and  administered  by  Sri  Sankara College Association Kalady, Sree Narayana Trusts Ouilon  and the Nair Service Society Changan nacherry.  The  petitioners in the 33 petitions specially invoke-the provisions of  Art. 30  of  the  Constitution which protects the  right  of  the minorities to establish and adminis- 9SupCI(P)/71-3 738 ter  educational institutions of their choice.  All the 3  6 petitions   invoke  Arts.  19(1)(f),  31  and  14   of   the Constitution. The  impugned  Act consists of 78 sections  divided  into  9 chapters.   The  main  attack in the  petitions  is  against



Chapter VIII headed ’private colleges’ consisting of ss.  47 to 61 and some provisions of Chapter IX particularly s.  63. The  High Court has declared that sub-ss. (2) and (4) of  s. 48, Sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s. 49, sub-ss. (1), (2), (3)  and (9) of s. 53, sub-ss. (2) and (4) of s. 56, s. 58 (except to some  extent)  are  offensive of Art. 19(1)  in  so  far  as citizen  petitioners are concerned and additionally,  in  so far as the minority institutions are concerned, offensive to Art.  30(1),  and  therefore  void.   The  petitions   were, therefore, allowed except two petitions (O.t.S. No. 2339 and 2796 of 1969) filed by Sree Sankara College Association  and the   Nair  Service  Society  since  the  petitioners   were companies and were not entitled to the benefit of Art. 30(1) not  being  minority institutions and not entitled  to  Art. 19(1)(f) not being citizens.  Section 63 was, however,  held to  offend Art. 31(2) and not saved by Art. 3 1 A(1)(b)  and this  declaration was in favour of all the petitioners.   It was also declared void as offending Art. 30(1) in so far  as the  minority institutions were concerned.  The rest of  the Act  was  declared to be valid and the challenge to  it  was ’rejected.  There was no order about costs. The  State of Kerala and the University challenge the  judg- ment  in so far as it declares the provisions of the Act  to be  void  and  the  petitioners in  the  7  counter  appeals challenge  the  judgment in so far as it  has  rejected  the attack  on some other provisions.  We shall deal first  with the  contentions urged on behalf of the State of Kerala  and the University of Kerala and then deal with the  contentions of  the majority institutions and the challenge to the  sur- viving  portions  of  the  impugned  Act  by  the  appealing original petitioners. in  the matter of the minorities the main attack comes  from Art. 30(1) of the Constitution.  This clause reads :               "30.   Right  of minorities to  establish  and               administer educational institutions.               (1) All minorities, whether based on religions               or language, shall have the right to establish               and  administer  educational  institutions  of               their choice. It declares it to be a fundamental right of the  minorities, whether  based  on religion or language,  to  establish  and administer educational institutions of their choice.  It  is conceded by the petitioners 739 representing minority communities before us (and indeed they could  not gainsay this in the face, of authorities of  this Court)  that  the  State or the University  to  which  these institutions  are  affiliated  may  prescribe  standards  of teaching   and  the  scholastic  efficiency  expected   from colleges.   They  concede  also that  to  a  certain  extent conditions  of employment of teachers, hygiene and  physical training  of  students  can  be  regulated.   ’.  What  they contended is that here there is an attempt to interfere with the  administration  of these institutions and  this  is  an invasion of the fundamental right.  The minority communities further  claim  protection  for  their  property  rights  in institutions  under Arts. 31 and 19(1)(f) and the  right  to practice any profession or to, carry on any occupation trade or business guaranteed by sub-cl(g) of the latter  ’article. The majority community which is also the founder of  private colleges  (of which three instances are before, us)  do  not claim the right stemming from Art. 30(1),but they claim  the other rights mentioned above and further seek protections of equality  in  law with the minority  institutions  and  thus freedom  in  the establishment and administration  of  their



institutions. The claim of the majority community institutions to equality with minority communities in the matter of the establishment and  administration  of  their  institutions  leads  to  the consideration  whether the equality clause can at  all  give protection,  when  the Constitution  itself  classifies  the ’minority  communities  into a separate entity  for  special protection  which.  is denied. to  the  majority  community. This  is  not a case of giving some’  benefits  to  minority communities  which in reason must ,also go to  the  majority community institutions but a special kind of protection  for which the Constitution singles out the minority communities. This question, however, does not fall within. out purview as the State, at the hearing announced that it was not intended to   enforce  the  provisions  of  the  -law  relating,   to administration  against the majority institutions  only,  if they   could.   not  be  enforced   against   the   minority institutions.   Therefore,  we,,  have’,  to  consider,  the disputed   provisions   primarily  under  Art.   30(1)   and secondarily under Arts. 31 and 19 where applicable. Article  30(1)  has  been construed before  by  this  Court. Without  referring  to those cases it is sufficient  to  say that the clause contemplates two rights which are  separated in  point of time.  The first right is the initial right  to establish    institutions   of   the   minority’s    choice. Establishment  here  means  the bringing into  being  of  an institution  and  it must be, by a minority  community.   It matters  not if a single philanthropic individual  with  his own means, founds the institution or the community at  large contributes-the funds.  The position in law is the same  and the intention in either case must be to found an institution for the benefit of a minority community by a member of  that community.  It is equally irrelevant 740 that in addition to the minority community others from other minority  communities- or even from the  majority  community can  take  advantage  of  these  institutions.   Such  other communities  bring  in  income and they do not  have  to  be turned away to enjoy the protection.  The next part of the right relates to the administration of such institutions.  Administration means ’management of  the affairs’  of the institution.  This management must be  free of control so that the founders or their nominees can  mould the  institution as they think fit, and in  accordance  with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and  the institution in particular will be best served.   No part  of  this management can be taken away  and  vested  in another  body  without an encroachment upon  the  guaranteed right. There  is, however, an exception to this and it is that  the standards of education are not a part of management as such. These standards concern the body politic and are dictated by considerations  of the, advancement of the country  and  its people.   Therefore, if universities establish  syllabi  for examinations  they  must be followed,  subject  however  to. special subjects which the, institutions may seek to  teach, and  to  a certain extent the State may  also  regulate  the conditions  of  employment of teachers and  the  health  and hygiene of students.  Such regulations do not bear  directly upon management as such although they may indirectly  affect it.   Yet  the  right of the State  to  regulate  education, educational  Standards and allied matters cannot be  denied. The  minority institutions cannot be allowed to  fall  below the   standards  of  excellence  expected   of   educational institutions,  or  under  the guise of  exclusive  right  of



management, to decline to follow the general pattern.  While the  management must be left to them, they may be  compelled to  keep in step with others.  These propositions have  been firmly  established  in  the  State  of  Bombay  v.   Bombay Education   Society(’),  The  State  of  Madras  v.  S.   C. Dorairajan  (2 ), In re the Kerala Education Bill 1957  (3), Sidharajbhai  v.  State  of  Gujarat  (4),  Katra  Education Society  v.  State of U.P. &  Ors.(5),  Gujarat  university, Ahmedabad  v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors.  (6)  and Rev.   Father W. Proost & Ors. v. State of Bihar(7)  In  the last  case it was said that the right need not  be  enlarged nor    whittled   down.    The   Constitution   speaks    of administration and that must fairly be left to the  minority institutions and no more.  Applying these principles we  now consider the provisions of the Act. The Act as stated already consists of 78 sections. arranged under 9 Chapters.  Chapter VIII is headed ’Private Colleges’ and (1)   [1955] 1 S. C. R. 568. (3)  [1959] S. C. R. 995. (5)  [1966] 3 S.C.R. 128. (7)   [1969] 2 S.C.R. 73 (2)  [1951] S.C.R. 525. (4)  [1963] 3 S. C. R. 837 (6)  [1963] Supp 1 S. C. R. 112. 741 Chapter  IX ’Miscellaneous’.  Chapter I contains  the  short title  and commencement (s. 1) and definitions (s.  2).   We are  concerned with some definitions in s. 2  -and  Chapters VIII  and IX.  The other chapters lay down the  constitution of  University and contain matters relating  thereto.   They are  not  in  dispute.  The High Courtin  its  judgment  has carefully  summarized the impugned provisions and it is  not necessary for us to cover the same ground. We shall  content ourselves  by  mentioning  the  important  aspects  briefly. "College" in the Act means an institution maintained by,  or affiliated  to,  the  University, in  which  instruction  is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes,, Ordinances  and  Regulations.   These  are  framed  by   the University.   ’Educational Agency’ means any person or  body of persons who or which establishes and maintains a  private college.  ’Private College’ means a college maintained by an agency  other,  than the -Government or the  University  and affiflated  to the University.  I ’Principal means the  head of  a college.  By ’teacher’ as used in the Act is  meant  a Principal,Prof   Assistant-Professor,  Reader.    ’Lecturer, Instructor  or  such other person imparting  instruction  or supervising  and whose appointment has been approved by  the University   in   any   of  the   colleges   or   recognised institutions.  ’Recognised teacher’ means a, person employed as  a  teacher  in  an  affiliated  institution  and   whose appointment hasbeen approved by the University.There is much overlapbetween ’college, -teacher’ and ’recognised  teacher’ but  thereis  no  antinomical  contusion  which  might  have otherwise resulted. These definitions by themselves are  not questionable but in thecontext of the provisions of Chapters VIII and IX, about to be referred to, the insistence on  the recognition by the University is claimed to be  interference with the freedom of management.  Chapter VIII embracesss. 47 to 61.  It begins with  the   definition    of    ’corporate management’  which means a person or body of persons who  or which  manages more than one private college.   Sections  48 and  49  deal respectively with (a) the  goveming  body  for private Colleges not under corporate management and (b) with managing  council  for  private  colleges  under   corporate



management.’  In either case the education agency (by  which term  we denote the educational agency of a private  college as also corporate management, that is to say, the person  or body  of persons who or which manages more than one  private college) is required to set up a governing body for  private college or a managing council for private colleges under one corporate  management.   The two sections  embody  the  same principles and differ only because in one case there is  but one  institution  and  in the other  more  than  one.   Both consist  of  7  sub-sections.  Under  these  provisions  the educational  aeency  or the corporate management  has  I  to establish   a   governing  body  or   a   managine   council respectively.  The sections give the compositions of the two bodies.  The governing body set up by the educational agency is to consist. of I I members and the 742 managing council of 21, member The 1 1 members of the govem- ing  body are (i) the principal of the private college  (ii) the manager of the -.private college (iii)a person nominated by- the University-in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in the Statutes,(iv) a person nominated  by the Government (v) a person elected in accordance with such, procedure  as  may  be prescribed by the,  Statutes  of  the University  from among themselves by the permanent  teachers of  the  private-  college and (vi-xi) not  more  than  six. persons  nominated  by  the educational  agency.   The  com- position of the managing council consists of -a principal in rotation  from the private colleges, manager of the  private colleges, the nominees of the University, and the Government as  above,described,  two  elected  representatives  of  the teachers  and  not  more than 15 members  nominated  by  the educational  agency.   The  Act  ought  to  have   used  the expression  corporate  management’ instead  of  ’educational agency’ but the meaning is clear. It  will  thus  be seen that a body  quite  apart  from  the educational  agency ’or the corporate management is set  up. Sub-section  (2)  in either section make these  bodies  into bodies  corporate having perpetual success in and  a  common seal.  The manager of the college or colleges, as  the  case may  be is the, Chairman  in either case [sub-s.  (3)]  Sub- section (4) then says that the member shall hold office  for a  period  of 4 years  from the date  of  its  constitution. Sub-section(5) then says as follows;               "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Government               body/(Managing  council)  to  administer   the               Private  college  (all  the  private  colleges               under the corporate management) in  accordance               with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  the               Statutes,  Ordinances, Regulations,  -Bye-laws               and Orders made thereunder." (We  have attempted to combine the two provisions here.   In the  case  of governing body the sub-section is to  be  read omitting the ,words in brackets and in  the case of managing council the underlined words are to be omitted and the  sub- section read with the words in brackets.) Sub-section(6) then lays down that the powers and  functions of the governing body, (the managing council), the,  removal of  members thereof and the Procedure to be followed by  it, including the delegation of its powers; shall be  prescribed by-  the Statutes. Sub-section (7) lays down that  decisions in  either of the two bodies shall be taken at  meetings  on the  basis  of simple majority of the  members  present  and voting. These  sections  were partly declared ultra  vires  of  Art. 30(1) :by the High Court as they took away from the founders



the right 743 to  administer  their own institution.  It is  obvious  that after  the  erection of the governing body or  the  managing council  the founders or even the community has no  hand  in the  administration.   The two bodies are  vested  with  the complete administration of the, institutions.  These -bodies have  a  legal  personality distinct  from  the  educational agency   or   the  corporate  management.   They   are   not ’answerable   to   the:   founders   -in   the   matter   of administration.   Their powers and functions are  determined by  the University laws and even the removal of the  members is to. be governed by the Statutes of the University.   Sub- sections  (2), (4), (5) and (6) clearly vest the  management and  administration  in  the hands of the  two  bodies  with mandates from the, University. In attempting to save these provisions Mr. Mohan  Kumaraman- galam  drew attention to two facts only.  The first is  that the  nominees of the educational agencies or  the  corporate management  have the controlling voice and that the  defect, if   any,  must  be  found  in  the  Statutes,   Ordinances, Regulations,  Bye-laws and Orders of the University and  not in the provisions of the Act.  Both these arguments are  not acceptable   to  us.   The  Constitution  contemplates   the administration  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the   particular community.   However  desirable  it might  be  to  associate nominated  members  of the kind mentioned in ss. 48  and  49 with  other  members of the governing body or  the  managing council nominees, it is obvious that their voice must play a considerable  part  in  management.   Situations  might   be conceived  when they may have a preponderating  voice,.   In any  event, the administration goes to a distinct  corporate body which is in no way answerable to the educational agency or  the corporate management.  The founders have no  say  in the  selection of the members nominated or  selected  except those  to’ be nominated by them.  It is,.  therefore,  clear that by the force of sub-ss. (2), (4) and (6) of ss. 48  and 49 the minority community loses the right to administer  the institution  it has founded.  Sub-section (5)  also  compels the  governing  body or the managing council to  follow  the mandates  of  the University in the  administration  of  the institution.   No doubt the Statutes,  Ordinances,  Reguula- tions,  Rules.  Bye-laws and Orders can also be examined  in the  light of Art. 30(1) but the blanket Dower so  given  to the   University   bears  adversely  upon   the   right   of administration.  This position is further heightened by  the other  provisions  of the Act to which a  reference  is  now needed. Section  53-,  sub-ss.  (1),  (2)  and  (3)  confer  on  the Syndicate  of  the University the power to veto  even  the,, action of the governing body or the managing council in  the selection  of  the principal.  Similarly, sub-s.  (4)  fakes away from the educational agency or the corporate management the  right to select the teachers.  The insistence on  merit in  sub-s.(4) or on seniorty cum fitness in sub (7)does  not save the situation.  The power is exercised not by 744 the educational agency or the corporate management but by  a distinct  and  autonomous  body under  the  control  of  the Syndicate,  of  the University.  Indeed sub-s. (9)  gives  a right of appeal to the, Syndicate to any person aggrieved by the  action of governing body or the managing  council  thus making  the  Syndicate the final and absolute  authority  in these  matters.  Coupled with tills’ is the power  of  Vice- Chancellor  and the Syndicate in sub-ss. (2) and (4)  of  s.



56.  These sub-sections read:               "56.   Conditions  of service of  teachers  of               private colleges.               (1).................................               (2)  No teacher of a private college shall  be               dismissed,  removed or reduced in rank by  the               governing body or managing council without the               previous  sanction of the  Vice-Chancellor  or               placed under suspension by the governing  body               or  managing council for a  continuous  period               exceeding  fifteen days without such  previous               sanction.               (3)...........................               (4) A teacher against whom disciplinary action               is  taken shall have a right of appeal to  the               Syndicate, and the Syndicate shall have  power               to order reinstatement of the teacher in cases               of wrongful removal or dismissal and ’to order               such other remedial measures as it deems  fit,               and the governing body or managing council, as               the case may be, shall comply with the order." These  provisions clearly take away the disciplinary  action from the governing body and the managing council and  confer it upon the University.  Then comes s. 58 which reads               "58. Membership of Legislative Assembly, etc.,               not to disqualify teachers.-               A  teacher of a private college shall  not  be               disqualified  for continuing as  such  teacher               merely on the ground that he has been  elected               as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the               State or of Parliament or of a local authority               :               Provided that a teacher who is a member of the               Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  or   of               Parliament shall be on leave during the period               in   which   the   Legislative   Assembly   or               Parliament,   as  the  case  may  be,  is   in               session." This  enables political parties to come into the picture  of the  administration of minority institutions which  may  not like this inter- 745 ference.  When this is coupled with the choice of  nominated members  left  to Government and the  University  by  sub-s. (1)(d) of ss. 48 and 49, it is clear that there is much room for  interference  by persons other than those in  whom  the founding community would have confidence.               To  crown  all there is the  provision  of  s.               63(1) which reads               "63.   Power  to regulate  the  management  of               private colleges.               (1)  Whenever  Government  are  satisfied   on               receipt  of  a report from the  University  or               upon other information that a grave  situation               has  arisen in which the working of a  private               college cannot be carried on for all or any of               the following reasons, namely:-               (a)  default in the payment of the  salary  of               the members of the staff of the college for  a               period of not less than three months;               (b)  wilful closing down of the college for  a               period  of not less than one month  except  in               the case of the closure   of    the    college               during a vacation;               (c) persistent default or refusal to carry out



             all or any of the duties imposed on any of the               authorities of the college by this Act or  the               Statutes or Ordinances or Regulations or Rules               or  Bye-laws or lawful -orders  orders  passed               thereunder;               and that in the interest of private college it               is  necessary  so to do, the  Government  may,               after  giving the governing body  or  managing               council,  as  the  case may  be,  the  manager               appointed under sub-section (1) of section  50               and  the  education  agency, if  any,  of  the               college  a reasonable opportunity  of  showing               cause  against the proposed action  and  after               considering  the  cause,  if  any,  shown,  by               order,,  appoint the University to manage  the               affairs  of such private  college  temporarily               for a period not exceeding two years;               Provided  that in cases where action is  taken               under  this  sub-section otherwise than  on  a               report  from  the  University,  it  shall   be               consulted before taking such action. The remaining provisions of this section lay down an  elabo- rate  procedure for management in which even  the  governing body or the managing council have no say.  Sub-section 63(1) involves 746 the transfer of right to possession of the properties to the University.   The High Court rightly pointed out  that  this section   provides   for  compulsory  requisition   of   the properties within Art. 31(2) and (2A).  To be effective  the section  required the assert of the President  under  sub-s. (3) and it ’was not obtained.  Therefore the saving in  Art. 31A(1)(b) is not available. Mr. Mohan Kumarmangalam brought to our notice passages  from the  Report  of the Education Commission in which  the  Com- mission had made suggestions regarding the conditions is  of service  of the teaching staff in the universities  and  the colleges and standards of teaching.  He also referred to the Report  of  the  Education  Commission  on  the  status   of teachers, suggestions for improving the teaching methods and standards.  He, argued that what has been done by the Kerala University Act is to implement these suggestions in Chapters VIII and IX and particularly the impugned sections.  We have no doubt that the provisions of the Act were made bona  fide and  in the interest of education but unfortunately they  do affect the administration of these institutions and rob  the founders of that right which the Constitution desires should be  theirs.  The provisions, even if salutary, cannot  stand in  the  face of the constitutional guarantee.  We  do  not, therefore, find it necessary to refer to the two reports. The-result  of  the above analysis of the  provisions  which have been successfully challenged discloses that  High Court was  right in its appreciation of the true position  in  the light  of  the Constitution.  We agree with the  High  Court that  sub-ss. (2) and (4) of ss. 48 and 49 are  ultra  vires Art.  30(1).  Indeed we think that sub-ss. (6) of these  two sections  are also ultra vires.  They offend more  than  the other  two  of which they are a part and  parcel.   We  also agree  that sub-ss. (1), (2), (3) and (9) of s. 53,  sub-ss. (2)  and (4) of s. 56 are ultra vires as they fail with  ss. 48  and  49.   We express no opinion  regarding  these  sub- sections  vis-a-vis Art. 30(1).  We also agree that  Section 58  (in  so  far as it removes  disqualification  which  the founders  may  not like to agree to) and Sec. 63  are  ultra vires   Articles   30(1)   in  respect   of   the   minority



institutions. The  High Court has held that the provisions (Except s.  63) are  also  offensive  to  Art. 19(1)(f) in  so  far  as  the petitioners  are  citizens  of  India  both  in  respect  of majority  as  well as minority institutions.   This  was  at first  debated at least in so far as  majority  institutions were  concerned.  The majority institutions invoked Art.  14 and complained of discrimination.  However, at a later stage of  proceedings Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam stated that he  had instructions to say that any provision held inapplicable  to minority  institutions  would not be  enforced  against  the majority  institutions  also.  Hence it relives us  of  file task of considering the matter under Art. 19(1)(f) not  only in respect of minority institutions 747 but   in  respect  of  majority  institutions   also.    The provisions of s. 63 affect both kinds of institutions  alike and must be declared ultra vires in respect of both. The result is that the Judgment under appeal is upheld.  The appeals  of  the  State  Government of  Kerala  and  of  the University  are  dismissed with costs.  One set  of  hearing fees.   For  the reasons given by the High Court we  do  not accept  the  contentions of the seven  appellants  who  have challenged  some of the other provisions of the  Act  except ss.  48  (6) and 49(6) and do not consider it  necessary  to repeat  what is said by the High Court.  These  appeals  are dismissed except as to those sections but without costs. R.K.P.S.                              Appeals dismissed. 748