http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANUBHAI PRAGAJI VASHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1995

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR    1            1995 SCC  (5) 730  JT 1995 (6)   119        1995 SCALE  (4)797

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          JUDGMENT PARIPOORNAN,J.      Leave granted.      Stete  of  Maharashtra  represented  by  the  Education Department -the appellant in both the appeals- filed special leave petitions against the common Judgment and Order of the High Court  of Judicature of Bombay dated 19.8.1988 rendered in Writ  Petition No.2303  of 1987 and Writ Petition No.4816 of 1987. The writ petitions are public interest litigations, wherein the  State of  Maharashtra was the first respondent. The petitioner,  who filed writ petition No.2303 of 1987, is the first  respondent in the appeal filed in S.L.P. No.14017 of 1988 and the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.4816 of 1987 are  respondents Nos.51,  52 and 53 in the appeals. The other respondents  in the  High Court and also in this Court are the  University of  Bombay, various  universities in the State of Maharashtra, various law colleges affiliated to the Bombay University  and the  University of  Pune, Marathwada, Nagpur and  Kolhapur, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and the Bar Council  of India.  The University  Grants Commission is also a  respondent. It  should be  stated at the outset that the  common   appellant  in   these  civil  appeals  (State) (petitioner in  the S.L.Ps.  and the common first respondent inthe writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court)  was  the  sole contesting party in the High Court. The other respondents in the High  Court and  still before us support the petitioners in the writ petitions - respondents in the civil appeals. 2.    Writ  petition No.  2303 of 1987 is the main petition. The  prayer   therein  was   to  direct  the  Government  of Maharashtra to  extend the  grant-in-aid scheme  to the non- Government Law  Colleges in  the State  retrospectively from April, 1982 or from the date of filing of the writ petition. Respondents 51 to 53 in the civil appeals addressed a letter to the  High Court the raising certain grievances of retired employees of  Law College, Pune. The said letter was treated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

by the  High Court  suo motu  as Writ  petition No.  4816 of 1987. The  prayer therein  was that  the benefit of pension- cum- gratuity  scheme introduced  by the  Government for all teaching and  non-teaching staff  in colleges with faculties in Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicines as per GR No.  NCC-1983(865)-INI-4 dated  21.7.1983 should  be made applicable to  the staff of the non-Government Law Colleges. A Division  Bench of the High Court of Bombay, consisting of consisting of  Lentin and  Agarwal, JJ.  by  judgment  dated 19.8.1988, held  that the  action of  the Government  is not extending the  grants-in-aid,  afforded  to  faculties  like Arts, Science,  Commerce, Engineering  and Medicine  to non- Government recognised law colleges is discriminatory. It was held that  withholding of  facility of grants-in-aid to non- Government Law  College would be discrimination between such law college  from whom  grants-in-aid are withheld and other non-Government colleges  with faculties viz., Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering  and Medicine,  to whom  grants-in-aid are given.  After  referring  to  the  relevant  facts,  the Division Bench  passed an  order  in  paragraph  34  of  the judgment dated 19.8.1988, to the following effect:-      "A. Commencing  from academic year June,      1988, Government  is directed  to extend      the   Grant-in-aid    Scheme   to    all      Government   recognised    private   law      colleges on  the same  criteria as  such      grants are given to other faculties viz.      Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and      Medicine.      B.  The   scheme  shall  be  implemented      within 12 weeks from today.      C. Regarding non-Government law colleges      which have  closed down  or are about to      close down,  their statistics  shall  be      considered by  Government as of academic      year  1985-86   for   the   purpose   of      extending grants.      D.  Government   shall   implement   the      pension-cum-gratuity scheme in favour of      the staff of non-Government law colleges      with effect from 1.10.1982 on such staff      exercising  their   option  in   writing      within  four   weeks  from  Government’s      declaration  to  implement  Grant-in-aid      scheme to non-Government law colleges.      E.  No   order  as   to  costs   of  the      petitions. Rule  is  made  absoluted  in      terms above." 3.     A   Division  Bench  of  this  Court,by  order  dated 9.12.1988, ordered  issued of  notice  in  the  S.L.Ps.  and passed the following order:-      "Issue notice  returnable on  31.1.1989.      The state  of Maharashtra is directed to      consider the  question of implementation      of the  impugned judgment  of  the  High      Court in  accordance with  the grant-in-      aid scheme  framed by the Government for      recognised   private    colleges.   Such      consideration shall  be made within four      weeks from  date and  the  law  colleges      which will be considered by the State of      Maharashtra as  eligible for  the grant-      in-aid shall  be paid  the  grant-in-aid      within two  weeks thereafter.  Mr.  S.K.      Agnihotri, learned  counsel appearing on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

    behalf of  Respondent No.1 is discharged      as prayed  for by  him as the Respondent      No.1  has  himself  appeared  in  person      before us  and accepts notice. The State      of Maharashtra  shall supply  copies  of      the grant-in-aid scheme to the appearing      respondents  within   four  weeks   from      today." 4.    By Order dated 14.2.1989, a Bench of this Court passed an interim order to the following effect:-      "List the  matter on  28th March,  1989,      subject  to   overnight  part-heard  for      final disposal.  There will  be  interim      stay of the operation of the judgment of      the High  Court and  also the hearing of      the application  for contempt  which has      been filed  by the 1st Respondent in the      High Court.  Additional  affidavits,  if      any, shall be filed in the meantime." Still later, on 23.10.1990, a Bench of this Court passed the following interim order:-      "After  hearing   the  learned   counsel      Mr.S.K.Dholakia,   Sr.    Adv.   for   a      considerable length  of time,  we  think      that for  the ends  of justice  and fair      play, the State of Maharashtra will file      before  us   the  Rules   or   Acts   or      administrative instructions on the basis      of which  sanction has  been accorded to      the instant  law college  and also other      38 law  colleges. The  petitioner  shall      also  produce   before  this  Court  the      original sanction  memos issued  by  the      State not only in respect of the instant      law  college,  but  also  of  other  law      colleges established  either before 1983      or after  1983. We also direct the State      Government to  produce before this Court      the facts  which were taken into account      in determining that these colleges which      are  accorded   saction  will   be  self      sufficient in  running their  respective      institutions  without   asking  for   or      awaiting for  the grant  from the  State      Government. We also further clarify that      if there is any undertaking given by any      of the colleges, the said undertaking in      its original  form or a copy of the same      with  an   affidavit  by  a  responsible      officer  be  filed  before  this  Court.      These documents be filed within a period      of five  weeks from this date positively      with an  advance copy  of the  affidavit      filed, if  any, to  the counsel  for the      other side.  The matter may be listed on      28.11.1990 subject  to  overnight  part-      heard. Liberty  is  also  given  to  the      counsel  for  the  respondents  to  file      affidavits in  counter, if  any,  within      that period." The office  report, available  at pages  515 D  and E of the paper book,  shows that  the parties  did  not  comply  with aforesaid directions issued by this Court. 5.    On  30.8.1991,  a  Bench  of  this  Court  passed  the following order:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

    "Shri  M.P.   Vashi  states   that   the      Government of  Maharashtra  has  already      put some  amount being allocated for law      colleges   in    the   Budget   in   the      Maharashtra Assembly  for the years 1988      and onwards.  He would file documents in      suport of  this contention  and  give  a      copy in  advance to  the counsel for the      state of Maharashtra." 6.   Still later,  on 3.10.1991,  a Bench  of this Court has passed the following order:-      " The  respondents have furnished Budget      estimates for  the years  1990 -91   and      1991-92   showing    that   the    State      Government had  allocated some grant for      law colleges.  Learned counsel  for  the      petitioner/State  wants   time  to  seek      further instructions  from the  State in      this regard.  He prays  for one  month’s      adjournment. The  prayer for adjournment      is  contested   from  the  side  of  the      respondents. We  consider it  proper  in      the interest  of justice to grant a last      opportunity  of   one   month   to   the      petitioner to  file an affidavit stating      all  the  details  with  regard  to  the      allocation  of   Budget  for   the   law      colleges in the State of Maharashtra. We      also award  a  cost  of  Rs.1,000/-  for      adjournment. Put  up on  22nd  November,      1991 at  the top  of the  hearing  cases      subject  to  overnight  part-heard.  The      amount  of  Rs.  1,000/-  will  be  paid      within two weeks to the respondents."      Along with the additional submission filed by the first respondent in the civil appeal, papers evidencing ‘technical education  in  Maharashtra  State  1989-90’,  the  statement showing grants-in-aid  given to  aided Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic  and  other  technical  institutions  have  been annexed as  Ext. Pl.  In  Ext.  P2,  filed  along  with  the additional submission, civil budget estimates of expenditure for the year 1992-93 for Education and Employment Department of Government  of Maharashtra  it is  seen at  SI. No.104 on page  E48  under  the  head  104(1)(I),  ‘  grants  to  non- Government Arts, Science, Law and Commerce Colleges’. 7.    We  heard  counsel  on  both  sides.  The  appellant’s counsel stressed the following aspects:-           (A) The  High Court  was in error in assuming that                other  non-Government   private  professional                colleges like  Engineering Colleges,  Medical                Colleges, etc.  were  given  the  benefit  of                grants-in-aid scheme  and on  this basis,  it                was  discriminacory   in  not  extending  the                grants-in-aid scheme  to  non-Government  Law                Colleges.  It   was  this  erroneous  factual                assumption which  resulted in  the High Court                holding that  there is discrimination between                the professional  colleges  -  non-Government                law collegs  on the  one hand  and other non-                Government   professional    colleges    like                Engineering Colleges, Medical Colleges on the                other.           (B) It  is primarily for the Government to decide,                taking  into   account  the  total  financial                commitments and  constraints, whether  it  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

              possible to  extend the benefit of grants-in-                aid scheme to all or any private professional                colleges. Various non-Government Professional                colleges were  given recognition  only on the                condition that  none of  the  colleges  would                seek   grant-in-aid   scheme   to   be   made                applicable. It  is the policy decision of the                Government  whether   it  should  extend  the                benefit  of   grant-in-aid  scheme   to  non-                Government law colleges. The decision on that                score is not justiciable. 8.     On  the  other  hand,  counsel  for  the  respondents submitted  that  in  the  High  Court,  the  plea  that  the professional colleges  other than  law colleges  were  given grants-in-aid was  not  disputed  and  in  fact,  there  was sufficient material  before the  High  Court  to  show  that professional colleges  like Engineering  Colleges, Ayurvedic non-Government coleges  and B.ED.  colleges were  given  the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme. Even the affidavit filed by a responsible  senior official  of the  State of Maharashtra would go  to show  that private  professional colleges other than law colleges were extended the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme. The  plea of  discrimination found by the High Court is based  on substantial  material and  no  error  has  been committed on that score. Even the committee appointed by the Government under  the Chairmanship  of  the  then  Education Minister and  other members  recommended that  the  existing grant-in-aid formula  should be  made applicable to the non- Government law  colleges with  effect  from  1985-86  and  a Division  Bench   of  the  High  Court  directed  the  State Government to  take appropriate  steps in  that behalf.  The State Government was directed to file affidavits giving full particulars in  pursuance of  the earlier  order dated  27th August, 1987.  Even so,  no steps  were taken in that behalf and no  statement was  filed regarding  the steps  taken  in pursuance of  the recommendations  of the committee. What is more, in  the interim  order passed by this Court, the State was  directed   to  prepare   the  grant-in-aid   scheme  in accordance with  the judgment  of the High Court and specify the law  colleges which were found to be eligible to be paid the  grant-in-aid.   Various  law   colleges  submitted  the relevant documents  to enable  the Government to prepare the scheme. Though  the State Government prayed for extension of time to  frame the  scheme, no  orders were obtained thereon nor was  the scheme  prepared. Apart from the discriminatory treatment meted out to one facet of education, viz., private law colleges,  the Division  Bench also  stressed the  point that in the context of the obligation of the State under the directive principle  of the  State policy  to  provide  free legal aid,  legal education  to a good number of students is essential and  in its absence, hardship and detriment to the general public will ensue and the public will be deprived of the legal  assistance. The  inaction of the executive should be set  right by  appropriate directions  by the  Court.  By reckoning  this   factor  also,  the  High  Court  gave  the directions as it did in para 34 of the judgment. 9.    The main facts highlighted and found by the High Court which were  not  successfully  assailed  before  us  may  be stated. The  State of  Maharashtra has a reputation of being the premier  State in  India. Educationwise,  it has several faculties, viz.,  Arts, Science,  Engineering, Medicine  and Law. Except  law, all  other faculties run by the recognised non-Government  colleges   are  given  grant-in-aid  by  the Government. The  Government  recognised  non-Government  law colleges in  Maharashtra is the only faculty which is denied

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

the above  grant-in-aid. In  the State of Maharashtra, there is only one Government law college at Bombay. There has been an increase  in  demand  for  legal  education.  During  the academic year  1985-86, the  total number of law students in Maharashtra was about 25,700. The Government counsel himself stated before  the High  Court during the time when the writ petitions were  heard, that then the number of such students would be  in the  vicinity of 27,000/- to 28,000.  The heavy demand for  legal education could not be met by the solitary law college  run by the Government in Bombay. It resulted in private or  non-Government law  colleges coming up in Bombay and other  parts  of  Maharashtra.  All  such  colleges  are recognised by the Government. There are 38 law colleges. The strength of  the teaching  staff is 544, comprising about 91 full-timers and the remaining part-time staff. The full time non-teaching staff  is about  400. The Government recognised private law  colleges applied  for aid  as early as 1975. It was reiterated  by the  Chairman of the Bar Council of India on 1.12.1982.  Resolutions  were  passed.  Discussions  took place and  meetings were  held. Information  was invited and received by  the Government  from the various principals and data was  collected and  the matter  went on in like manner. But no  final  decision  was  taken  nor  was  grants-in-aid afforded to  the Government recognised private law colleges. It was  challenging this  inaction or hostile discriminatory attitude  towards   legal  education   in  general  and  the Government recognised  private law colleges in particular, a public interest  litigation was  started by Mr. M.P.Vashi, a practising Advocate  and a  member of  the  Bar  Council  of Maharashtra. The  main plea  of the  State was lack of funds and also the general or vague unsubstantiated statement that other private professional educational institutions were not receiving  grants-in-aid.  When,  prima  facie,  a  plea  of discrimination is  made out,  the burden  of proof is on the State to  show that  it is  not so;  or  that  a  valid  and permissible  classification   exists  for  the  differential treatment meted  out to  Government recognised  private  law colleges alone.  There should  be nexus between the basis of classification   and   the   object   of   the   Act   under consideration.  On   the  above   crucial  aspects,   on  an evaluation of  Government’s affidavits, they are found to be wanting, replete  as they  are  with  generalisations,  good intention and  achievements in  other  fields  of  education which are  irrelevant. The  charge of  discrimination stands unproved. It  was further  stated  by  the  State  that  the maximum effort  is  taken  by  it  to  provide  primary  and secondary education  to every  child  and  that  the  weaker section of  the society  is taken  care of  within available financial resources  and private  professional colleges were given recognition  only on condition that they will be self- supporting and  will not  insist for affording grant-in-aid. These pleas  urged by  the State are no answer to the charge of discrimination  pleaded in the writ petitions. Paucity of funds can  be no  reason for  discrimination. One  facet  of education cannot  be  selected  for  hostile  discriminatory treatment, whatever  may be  the other  laudable  activities pursued by  the Government in the matter of education or its discretion to  assign the  order of  priorities in different spheres of education. In a fit case, it is open to the court to  direct   the  executive   to  carry  out  the  directive principles of  the Constitution,  when there  is inaction or slow action  by the  State. In the report submitted by prof. Mogh in  August,  1986,  he  recommended  that  grant-in-aid should be  extended to non-Government law colleges and a sum of Rs.  89.92 lakhs  is required  for this  purpose with  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

increase every  year depending  on the  number of  colleges, etc. The  total budget for the State in the year 1987-88 was Rs. 5,351  crores, out  of which  Rs. 791  crores  had  been earmarked for expenditure for education. Out of 659 colleges in the  entire State,  198 colleges do not receive grant-in- aid. 38  non-Government law  colleges form  part of this 198 colleges. If the remaining 160 colleges which do not receive grant-in-aid (other than non-Government law colleges) insist for the  grant-in-aid, it  was stated that the expenses will amount to  only Rs.2 crores. If the grant-in-aid is given to private law colleges, the requirement will be less than 0.1% of the total budgetary allocation for education which is not a high  price for  legal education.  The staff of Government law  college   and  other  Government  run  colleges  having faculties  of   Arts,  Science,  Commerce,  Engineering  and Medicine draw  a much  higher scale  of emoluments and enjoy greater benefits  than what  the private  law colleges  with their depleted  resources can  possibly afford to pay by way of salaries  or other  benefits to their staff. Out of eight law colleges  in Marathwada,  seven are not in a position to pay salaries according to the scale fixed by the UGC. A Dean of Faculty of Law in Marathwada University and the principal in Dayanand College, Latur, with a teaching experience of 29 long years, draw a salary of Rs. 400/- per month. As against this, principals  and staff of aided colleges get as much as Rs. 4,000/-  to Rs.  5,000/- per  month with  allowances and other benefits.  Slowly private  law colleges,  one by  one, face the prospect of closure. The Dayanand College of Law at Latur had  closed the first and second year of LLB. classes. Law College  at Usmanabad  had closed  the first  year LL.B. Classes. Similar  is the  case of Jalna Law College. This is an increasing  epidemic and  the students will be starved of legal education  and will be deprived of practising law as a profession which  will cause  hardship and  detriment to the general public who will be deprived of legal assistance. 10.   On hearing counsel, we are of the view that no dispute seems to  have been  raised in  the High Court regarding the grant-in-aid   made    available   to   recognised   private professional colleges  other than  law. Nor was any material placed before the court on this score. The conclusion of the High Court to the effect that not extending the grant-in-aid to  non-Government   law  colleges  and  at  the  same  time extending  such  benefit  to  non-Government  colleges  with faculties viz.,  Arts, Science,  Commerce,  Engineering  and Medicine (other  professional  non-Government  colleges)  is patently  discriminatory,   and  based   on   material   and sustainable. The  State has  not discharged  the  burden  of proof cast on it to sustain the differential treatment meted out  to   one  of   the  Government  recognisd  professional colleges, (private  law colleges).  It is  patent that likes have been  treated unlike;  without proper  justification or reason and  the private  law colleges  have been singled out for hostile  discriminatory treatment.  The disparity in the service conditions  in not affording the benefit of pension- cum-gratuity  scheme  to  the  non-teaching  staff  in  non- Government law  colleges and  at the same time affording the same  benefit   to  non-teaching   staff  of  colleges  with faculties  in   Arts,  Science,  Commerce,  Engineering  and Medicine with  effect from  1.10.1982 is   discriminatory as correctly opined  by the  High Court  and requires to be set right. 11.   We hold that there is sufficient material on record to show that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in  stating   that   several   non-Government   professional colleges, like  Engineering Colleges, Medical Colleges, etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

are receiving  grant-in-aid from  the Government. Smt. Kumud Bansal,  Secretary,  Education  and  Employment  Department, Government of Maharashtra, in her additional affidavit filed on 24.1.1989, available at pages 155 to 161, has referred to the fact  that out of the total budget for the year 1988-89, a sum  of Rs.1,033.74  crores was  earmarked for educational purposes. The break-up is as follows:      Total budget 1988-89       Rs. 1,044.74 crores      Primary Education          Rs.   469.37 crores      Secondary Education        Rs.   390.59 crores      Higher Education           Rs.    99.39 crores      Technical Education        Rs.    65.89 crores      Other Education            Rs.     8.58 crores For  technical   education  (Polytechnics   and  Engineering Colleges), a  sum of  Rs. 65.81 crores was set apart and for ‘other education’,  Rs. 8.58  crores has  been  spent.  What faculty represents  the head  ‘other education’ is anybody’s guess. One  thing is  clear, that the said amount is not for ‘legal education’, and should be for subjects other than the one previously  dealt with  in the  narrative. The matter is not made  clear by  the State. It is also stated therin that in view  of paucity of funds, the Government do not think it possible toafford grant-in-aid to law colleges. Denying that there  was  any  discriminatory  attitude  against  the  law colleges in  particular, it is stated that out of, sixty-one private engineering  colleges,  only  six  of  them  started earlier have  been  granted  the  facility  of  grant-in-aid (pages 157  and 158 of the paper book). The further averment to  the  effect  that  private  professional  colleges  were allowed to  start only  on condition that they would not get grant-in-aid stands  belied, in  view of  the grant  to  six private engineering  colleges. On  what  basis  six  private engineering colleges  were admittedly given grant-in-aid, is not evident.  It does  not stand  to reason.  The  affidavit filed by  Sri Madhusudan  Balakrishna Karmarkar  (Respondent No. 45)  dated 17.3.1989,  available at  pages 244 to 253 of the paper book, discloses the following facts:-      "On the  contrary  medical,  engineering      and  ayurvedic   colleges   which   were      started before  1983 were  either  fully      financed by  the Government  or were run      by the  Government itself. Government of      Maharashtra  has  approved  grant-in-aid      scheme    for     the     non-Government      engineering colleges  on 18th  May, 1978      (hereto annexed  and marked Ext.‘A’ is a      copy  of   the  said   scheme)  to   the      Ayurvedic non-Government colleges on 4th      September, 1978  and thereafter  on  2nd      May, 1980  (hereto  annexed  and  marked      Ext. ‘B’  and ‘C’  are the copies of the      said scheme). So far as medical colleges      are concerned, they are either being run      by  the  Government  itself  or  by  the      Municipal Corporation.  It is only after      1983  that  two  medical  colleges  were      allowed  to   be  started   by   private      management,  one  Krishna  Institute  of      Medical Science  at  Karad  and  another      Prawara Medical  College at  Prawanagar,      Dist,   Ahmednagar.    However,    these      colleges are  allowed to  charge tuition      fees of Rs. 30,000/- per year. There are      62  B.Ed.   colleges  in  the  State  of      Maharashtra at present. Out of these, 40

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

    colleges were  started prior to 1983 and      out of  these 40  colleges, 28 are being      run by the private managements and 12 by      the State  Government itself.  They give      training to the students to qualify them      as  professional   teachers.  In   other      words, it  is a  professional course and      all  28  non-Government  B.Ed.  Colleges      started before  1983 are  getting grants      from the  State  Government.  All  these      B.Ed. colleges  are treated  at par with      Arts, Science and Commerce colleges. The      Government of  Maharashtra has  approved      grant-in-aid   scheme   for   all   such      colleges on  3rd  October  1979  (hereto      annexed and  marked Ext. ‘D’ is the copy      of  the  said  scheme).  Therefore,  the      argument  of  petitioner  that  the  law      course is  professional course and hence      they are  not eligible for grants has no      basis. The  same  is  falsified  by  the      above facts  supported by the respective      exhibits." Annexure A  dated 18.5.1978,  the order of the Government of Maharashtra, shows  that grant-in-aid  is afforded  to  non- Government Engineering, Technical and Technological colleges and polytechnics  in the State (page 254 of the paper book). Annexure B  to the  said  affidavit  is  the  order  of  the Government dated  4th September, 1978 (page 270 of the paper book). Annexure  C is  the order of the Government dated 2nd May, 1980  (page 278 of the paper book) and Annexure D (page 288) is an order of the Government dated 3.10.1979. Annexure A dated  18.5.1978, Annexure  B dated  4.9.1978, Annexure  C dated 2.5.1980  and Annexure  D dated  3.10.1979 indisputaby show that the Government of Maharashtra was affording grant- in-aid to  the  non-Government  Engineering,  Technical  and Technological  colleges   and  polytechnics   and  also   to Government    recognised    private    ayurvedic    teaching institutions or  hospitals and non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce Colleges.  Thus, Engineering  and  Medical  College (professional College) were given grant-in-aid. In the light of the  above unassailable  state of affairs, it is idle for the State  to contend  that the  High Court  was in error in assuming that  non-Government private  professional colleges like Engineering Colleges, Medical Colleges, etc. were given the benefit  of grant-in-aid  scheme. It  is perhaps, due to this undoubted state of affairs, there was no dispute before the High  Court on  this count. Our attention was invited to the  fact   that  the   working  group  constituted  by  the Government of  Maharashtra, by  order G.R.  No. NCC/2086/(7) INI-2A dated  24th April,  1986 under  the  Chairmanship  of Prof. D.R.Meghe,  Principal of  University College  of  Law, Nagpur, submitted  a report  for non-Government Law Colleges in the  State of  Maharashtra (available at pages 208 to 218 of the  paper book).  The working group has recommended that the revised unified and integrated grant-in-aid formula laid down to colleges of Arts, Commerce,Science and Education, as reflected in  Resolution No.  NGC 1279/157796  -  XXV  dated 3.10.1979 (page  162 of  the  paper  book)  should  be  made applicable to  the non-Government  law colleges  with effect from 1985-86.  It was  also brought  to our  notice that the Government of  Maharashtra passed  a  resolution  [No.  USG. 1177/135330/XXII  (Cell)]   dated   25th   September,   1978 accepting  the  recommendation  of  the  Central  Government incorporating the recommendation of the UGC that the benefit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

of the revised scales recommended by the UGC should be given to the  full-time teachers  in law  colleges  and  that  the additional burden  on this  count will  be subsidised by the Central Government  to the  extent of  80 % during the Fifth plan period and the remaining 20 % being borne either by the management or  the State  Government. The  implementation of the scheme  of the  revision of  pay  scales  for  full-time teachers in  law colleges in Maharashtra was sanctioned with retrospective effect  from 1.1.1973,  as could  be seen from Annexure I  -pages 86 to 108 of the paper book. But, even so the UGC  scale was  not  implemented  so  far  as  full-time teachers in private law colleges are concerned. 12.   The  facts stated  above amply bring out the fact that recognised private  law colleges  alone were singled out for hostile discriminatory treatment. The recommendations of the committee (pages  198-208) to  apply the new formula for the grant to  private law colleges and the resolution adopted by the Government  to extend  the UGC scales to teachers of law colleges (pages  86-87) remained  only  in  ‘paper’  and  no concrete steps  were taken  to implement  them.  It  is  not explained as  to why  recognised private  law colleges alone are disentitled to receive grant-in-aid from the Government. The burden  of proof  cast on the State, that discrimination against recognised  private  law  colleges  is  based  on  a reasonable classification  having nexus to the object sought to be  achieved, has not been discharged. The High Court has held so,  placing reliance  on the  decisions of  this Court reported in  Budhan Choudhary  and others  v. State of Bihar (AIR 1955  SC 191), Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1958  SC 578),  Mehant Moti Das v. S.P.Sah (AIR 1959 SC 942) Babulal  Amthalal Mehta  V. Collector  of Customs  (AIR 1957 SC  877) and  D.S.Nakara v.Union  of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). We hold that the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the High  Court is  fully justified  and no exception can be taken to  the decision  so arrived at by the High Court. The High Court  has further  referred tothe  plea of  paucity of funds pleaded  by the  State and  has held  that paucity  of funds can  be no reason for discrimination, placing reliance on the  decision of  this Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam v.Vardhichand (AIR 1980 Sc 1622). This reasoning of the High Court is  also fully justified and no exception can be taken to the said proposition as well. We hold so. 13.   A plea was taken in the High Court that the petitioner has no right to seek a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution  basing his relief on a directive principle contained in  the Constitution.  The High  Court, rightly in our opinion,  repelled this  plea relying on the decision of this Court  in State  of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma (AIR 1986  SC 847).  The High  Court referred  to the dictum laid down  in the  aforesaid decision  to the effect (a) the Court can  in a  fit case  direct the executive to carry out the directive  principles of  the Constitution, and (b) when there is  inaction or  slow  action  by  the  executive  the judiciary must  intervene. We  have no  doubt that the above conclusion of the court below is also justified. 14.   On an analysis of the various aspects discussed above, it is  evident that the High Court was right in holding that recognised private  law colleges  have been  singled out for hostile discriminatory treatment in withholding grant-in-aid and so  interference in  the nature of affirmative action or direction in  the form  of remedial  measure was called for. Except to the extent of modifications contained hereinafter, the directions  given in  para 34  of the  judgment in  that behalf are  justified and proper in all the circumstances of the case.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

15.   Quite  apart from  the above,  we are also inclined to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court can be sustained independently on the basis of Article 21 read with Article 39A  of the  Constitution of  India. Articles 21 and 39A are as follows:-      "21. Protection  of  life  and  personal      liberty.- No person shall be deprived of      his  life  or  personal  liberty  except      according to  procedure  established  by      law.      xxxxxxxxxxx                 xxxxxxxxxxxx      39-A .  Equal  justice  and  free  legal      aid.- The  State shall  secure that  the      operation of  the legal  system promotes      justice,   on    a   basis,   of   equal      opportunity, and  shall  in  particular,      provide  free  legal  aid,  by  suitable      legislation or  schemes or  in any other      way, to  ensure that  opportunities  for      securing justice  are not  denied to any      citizen by  reason of  economic or other      disabilities."                           (emphasis supplied) Article 21  is a  fundamental right conferred under part III of the  Constitution, whereas  Article 39A  is  one  of  the directive principles  of the  State Policy  under part Iv of the Constitution.  As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in  Chandra Bhawan  Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore (AIR 1970 SC 2042) at page 2050, para 13:       "While  rights conferred under part III      are fundamental,  the  directives  given      under part  IV are  fundamental  in  the      governance of  the country.  We  see  no      conflict  on   the  whole   between  the      provisions contained  in  Part  III  and      Part  IV.  They  are  complementary  and      supplementary to each other."      In Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of A.P., (which  again is a Constitution  Bench decision)  [1993 (1)  SCC 645  at page 730], B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J. stated the law thus:      "It is  thus  well  established  by  the      decisions  of   this  Court   that   the      provisions  of  Parts  III  and  IV  are      supplementary and  complementary to each      other and  that fundamental  rights  are      but  a   means    to  achieve  the  goal      indicated in  Part IV.  It is  also held      that  the  fundamental  rights  must  be      construed in  the light of the directive      principles."                           (Emphasis supplied) At page 732, the learned Judge has further declared thus:      "The right to education which is implict      in  the   right  to  life  and  personal      liberty guaranteed by Article 21 must be      construed in  the light of the directive      principles   in    Part   IV    of   the      constitution."                           (Emphasis supplied) Article 21 of the Constitution dealing with personal liberty has many  dimensions as  held by  the series of decisions of this Court.  A few  of them  have  been  catalogued  in  the judgment of  Mohan, J.  in Unnikrishnan’s case [1993 (1) SCC 645) at pages 669 and 671. It is now fairly settled that the right to  legal  aid  and  speedy  trial  are  part  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

guarantee of  human rights  envisaged by  Aticle 21  of  the Constitution  of   India  (see   M.H.  Hoskot  v.  State  of Maharashtra -  1978 (3)  SCC 544, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State  of Bihar  1980 (1) SCC 98, and A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak - 1992(1) SCC 225. 16.   In  the light  of the  above, we  have to consider the combined effect  of  Article  21  and  Article  39A  of  the Constitution of  India. The  right to  free  legal  aid  and speedy trial are guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 21 of  the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution of India assures  ‘justice, social,  economic  and  political’. Article 39A of the Constitution provides ‘equal justice’ and ‘free legal  aid’. The State shall secure that the operation of the  legal system  promotes  justice.  It  means  justice according to  law. In  a democratic polity, governed by rule of law,  it should be the main concern of the State, to have a proper  legal system. Article 39 A mandates that the State shall provide  free legal  aid by  suitable  legislation  or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice  are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or  other disabilities. The principles contained in Article 39A  are fundamental and cast a duty on the State to secure that  the operation  of  the  legal  system  promotes justice, on  the basis  of equal  opportunities and  further mandates  to  provide  free  legal  aid  in  any  way  -  by legislation or  otherwise, so  that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The crucial words  are (the  obligation of the State) to provide free legal  aid ‘by  suitable legislation  or by schemes’ or ‘in any  other way’,  so  that  opportunities  for  securing justice are  not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other  disabilities. (Emphasis supplied). The above words occuring in Article 39A are of very wide import. In order to enable the  State to  afford free  legal aid  and  guarantee speedy trial,  a vast  number of  persons trained in law are essential. Legal  aid is  required  in  many  forms  and  at various  stages,   for  obtaining  guidance,  for  resolving disputes in  courts, tribunals  or other authorities. It has manifold facets.  The  explosion  in  population,  the  vast changes brought about by scientific, technological and other developments, and  the all  round enlarged  field  of  human activity reflected  in modern  society, and  the  consequent increase in  litigation in  courts and  other forums  demand that the  service of competent persons with expertise in law is required in many stages and at different forums or levels and should  be made available. The need for a continuing and well  orgaised  legal  education,  is  absolutely  essential reckoning the  new trends  in the  world order,  to meet the ever growing  challenges. The legal education should be able to meet  the ever  growing demands of the society and should be thoroughly  equipped to  cater to the complexities of the different situations.  Specialisation in  different branches of the  law is necessary. The requirement is of such a great dimension, that sizeable or vast number of dedicated persons should be  properly trained  in different  branches of  law, every year  by providing  or rendering  competent and proper legal education. This is possible only if adequate number of law colleges  with proper infrastructure including expertise law teachers  and staff  are established  to deal  with  the situation in an appropriate manner. It cannot admit of doubt that, of  late there  is a  fall in  the standard  of  legal education. The  area of  "deficiency" should  be located and correctives should  be effected  with  the  co-operation  of competent persons  before the  matter gets  beyond  control. Needless to  say that reputed and competent academics should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

be taken  into confidence  and their services availed of, to set right  matters. As  in this  case, a sole Government law college cannot  cater to  the needs  of legal  education  or requirement in  a  city  like  Bombay.  Lack  of  sufficient colleges  called   for  the  establishment  of  private  law colleges. If  the State  is unable  to start colleges of its own, it is only appropriate that private law colleges, which are duly  recognised by  the concerned University and/or the Bar Council  of India  and/or other appropriate authorities, as the case may be, should be afforded reasonable facilities to function  effectively and  in a  meaningful manner.  That requires  substantial   funds.  Under   the  label  of  self financing institutions, the colleges should not be permitted to hike the fees to any extent in order to meet the expenses to provide  the infrastructure  and for appointing competent teachers and  staff. The private law colleges, on their own, may not  afford to  incur the  huge cost  required  in  that behalf. The  ‘standard’ of legal education and discipline is bound to  suffer. It should not so happen for want of funds. The ‘quality’  should on no account suffer in providing free legal aid  and if  it is  not so,  ‘the free legal aid’ will only be a farce or make believe or illusory or a meaningless ritual. That  should not  be. It  is in  that direction  the grant-in-aid by  the State  will facilitate  and ensure  the recognised private  law colleges to function effectively and in a  meaningful manner  and turn  out sufficient  number of well trained  or  properly  equiped  law  graduates  in  all branches year after year. That will in turn enable the State and other  authorities to  provide free legal aid and ensure that opportunities  for securing  justice are  not denied to any citizen  on account  of any  disability.  These  aspects necessarily  flowing   from  Articles  21  and  39A  of  the Constitution were  totally lost  sight of  by the Government when it  denied the  grant-in-aid to  the recognised private law colleges  as was  afforded to  other faculties. We would add that  the State has abdicated the duty enjoined on it by the relevant  provisions of  the Constitution  aforesaid. In this perspective,  we hold that Article 21 read with Article 39A of  the Constitution  mandates or  casts a  duty on  the State to  afford  grant-in-aid  to  recognised  private  law colleges, similar  to other faculties, which qualify for the receipt of  the grant.  The aforesaid duty cast on the State cannot be  whittled down  in any  manner, either by pleading paucity of funds or otherwise. We make this position clear. 17.   Before  closing, we  may observe  that the  content of Article 21  read with  Article 39A  did not (in terms) arise for consideration  in this  court on  any previous occasion. Even in  the recent  Constitution Bench decision reported in Unnikrishnan’s case  (supra), Article  21 read with Articles 41, 45  and 46 alone came up for consideration. The scope of Article 21  in the  light of  Article 39A  never  arose  for consideration nor was it considered in the said decision. 18.   For  the above  reasons, we  uphold the  judgment  and order of  the High  Court of Bombay under appeal as detailed herein below and dismiss the civil appeals. 19.  In view of the fact that the decision of the High Court was rendered nearly seven years ago and the operation of the judgment was  stayed by this court as early as 14.2.1989, we are of  the view  that taking  into account  the  subsequent events,  the   ends  of   justice  call   for  suitable  and appropriate modification  regarding the operative portion of the judgment  contained in  paragraph 34  we, therefore,pass the  following   order  or  directions  in  substitution  of paragraph 34 of the judgment of the court below.      We direct  the State  of Maharashtra  to the  following

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

effect :-           A. Government  is directed to extend the grant-in-                aid  scheme   to  all  Government  recognised                private law colleges, on the same criteria as                such grants are given to other faculties viz.                Arts,  Science,   Commerce,  Engineering  and                Medicine from the academic year 1995;           B. The  scheme shall  be implemented  within three                months from today;           C. Regarding  non-Government  law  colleges  which                have closed  down or are about to close down,                the data  will be collected by the Government                of Maharashtra  forthwith and sincere attempt                must be made to re-start the colleges as they                existed in  the academic year 1985-86 for the                purpose of  extending grant-in-aid  from  the                academic year 1995-96;           D. As  stated by  the High Court, Government shall                implement the  pension-cum-gratuity scheme in                favour of  the staff  of  non-Government  law                colleges with  effect from  April 1,  1995 on                such staff exercising their option, on notice                being  served  on  them  individually  or  by                public notice,  within three  months from the                Government’s declaration  to implement grant-                in-aid scheme to non-Government law colleges;           E. Government  shall ensure, by taking appropriate                steps, that  those private  law colleges duly                and properly  recognised by Government and/or                other competent  authorities,  including  the                Bar  Council  of  India,  and  conforming  to                standards   laid    down    by    appropriate                authorities and  affiliated to an established                University alone  are afforded  the grant-in-                aid. Steps  shall be taken to ensure that the                aided institutions,  abide by  all the  rules                and regulations  of the aforesaid authorities                for  recognition  and  affiliation  including                such of  those rules  and regulations  in the                matter of  recruitment  of  teachers,  staff,                their  conditions   of   service,   syllabus,                standard of  teaching and discipline. In this                context, the Bar Council of India Rules, Part                IV,  standards   of   legal   education   and                recognition of degrees in law or admission as                Advocates, should be the guiding factor;           F. Government  should further  ensure that  a high                standard is maintained in legal education and                in that  behalf,  Government  of  Maharashtra                shall, with  the concurrence of the concerned                University, the  Bar Council  of  India,  Bar                council of  Maharashtra and  other  competent                bodies or  persons, as  the case may be, take                all necessary  steps, so  that excellence  in                legal education  is achieved.  This shall  be                done expeditiously; and           G. There  shall be  no order  as to costs in these                appeals.      The appeals are disposed of, as above.