Test Of Manifest Arbitrariness Can Apply To Invalidate Legislation: Supreme Court Strikes Down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017

The Supreme Court has struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 as being unconstitutional.

The Court said that the test of manifest arbitrariness would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the Khalsa University, challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said 2017 Act.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “It can thus be seen that in the said case, it was held that the test of manifest arbitrariness as laid down by this Court in various judgments would also apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. It was held that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. It further goes on to hold that when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such a legislation would be manifestly arbitrary.”

The Bench added that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared for the appellants while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shadan Farasat appeared for the respondents.

Factual Background -

In 2010, the Punjab State framed the Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010. The Khalsa College Charitable Society, Amritsar, which was in existence since 1892, submitted a proposal to the State Government for setting up a self-financing University in the State on the basis of the 2010 Policy. In 2011, the Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab, after examining the proposal, issued a Letter of Intent to Khalsa Society for establishing and running the Khalsa University, Amritsar. In 2016, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed The Khalsa University Act, 2016. The 2016 Act received the assent of the Governor of Punjab and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary. The Khalsa University after its establishment was imparting courses in 26 programmes and 215 students were admitted for the Academic Session 2016-17.

In 2017, the Registrar of Khalsa University communicated to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, that they have enacted the Statutes of the Khalsa University in consonance with the 2010 Policy, the 2016 Act and University Grants Commission guidelines. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Higher Education Department communicated to Khalsa University that no admission process will be started till the Statues of the University are approved by the State Government. The State Government promulgated an Ordinance thereby repealing the 2016 Act and shortly thereafter, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017. The State Government promulgated an Ordinance thereby repealing the 2016 Act and the impugned Act received an assent of the Governor. Being aggrieved, the Khalsa University filed a writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It is thus a settled position of law that though a legislation affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved. There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from the rest of the group.”

The Court added that, if a legislation affecting a single person, entity or undertaking is being enacted, there should be special circumstances requiring such an enactment and such special circumstances should be gathered from the material taken into consideration by the competent legislature and shall include the Parliamentary/Legislative Debates.

“… arbitrariness when applied to legislation cannot be used loosely. … Though it is the stand of the appellants that they were in the process of establishing new institutions for getting them affiliated with the Khalsa University, a specific undertaking was given that the Khalsa College would not be touched or adversely affected by the establishment of the Khalsa University. Even during the course of hearing, a specific statement has been made by the appellants that the Khalsa College would not be affiliated with the Khalsa University”, it also remarked.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the fact that, it is only the Khalsa College established in 1892 which is a heritage one and all other buildings have been subsequently constructed having no resemblance with the Khalsa College building.

“It can thus be seen that the very foundation that Khalsa University would shadow and damage the character and pristine glory of Khalsa College which has, over a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa heritage is on a non-existent basis. It could thus be seen that the Impugned Act, which was enacted with a purpose which was non-existent, would fall under the ambit of manifest arbitrariness and would therefore be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We are therefore of the considered view that the Impugned Act is also liable to be set aside on the same ground”, it held.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Khalsa University Act, 2016 would be deemed to be in force and status quo as it obtained on May 29, 2017 would stand restored.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and struck down the 2017 Act.

Cause Title- Khalsa University and Another v. The State of Punjab and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 751)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia and AOR Ashok K. Mahajan.

Respondents: AAG Shadan Farasat, AORs Siddhant Sharma, Ravinder Agarwal, Advocates Abhishek Babbar, Sheetal Dubey, and Lekh Raj Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment