Act Of Reading Down Provision Must Be Undertaken Only If It Can Keep Operation Of Statute Within Purpose Of Act & Constitutionally Valid: SC
The Supreme Court emphasised that the act of reading down a provision, must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute “within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid.”
The Court emphasised thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it disposed of a Writ Petition, two Special Appeals, and one Review Petition.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “Reading down’ of a provision is a subsidiary rule of interpretation of statutes, which the courts tend to employ in situations to save the subordinate legislation like a rule or a regulation, wherever possible and practical, by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation, rather than declaring it as unconstitutional or invalid. However, it has been clarified that it is to be used sparingly, and in limited circumstances. Additionally, it is clear that the act of reading down a provision, must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute “within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid.”
Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate PKS Baghel represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
The Respondent was an aspirant for the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in Allahabad University and its affiliated colleges. As per her pleadings, between October 2004 and March 2010 (approximately 5 ½ years), she worked as a contractual faculty in Jawad Ali Shah Imambara Girls PG College (affiliated to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur) at a monthly cash honorarium of Rs. 5000/-. Thereafter, between 2016 and 2021, she claims to have worked as a guest faculty in different constituent colleges of Allahabad University at different honoraria ranging from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In September 2021, the Allahabad University published an advertisement for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. The Respondent applied for appointment on the single advertised post in the unreserved category.
Thereafter, a constituent college of Allahabad University, viz. Iswar Saran Degree College (ISDC), issued an advertisement which, inter alia, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit. Then, another constituent college issued a similar advertisement. Pursuant to all the advertisements, the Respondent duly applied for appointment on the posts. Despite Respondent fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was not shortlisted for the interview as her score did not reach the cutoff marks. This happened because she was not awarded any marks under clause 7 in Table 3A for “Teaching/Post Doctoral experience”. Her past teaching experiences on contractual basis and as a guest faculty were not counted as ‘teaching experience’ by Allahabad University. Resultantly, litigation commenced and the High Court passed the impugned Judgment. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The legal position is, thus, clear. A situation could arise where plain and literal reading of a statute could lead to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose for which the enactment was introduced and, the situation, necessarily compels the court to adopt that construction which would carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The court would be justified in doing so, but it must be cautious that while it irons out the creases in the material it does not alter the material of which the legislation is woven.”
The Court said that, whenever selection is based solely on the performance of the aspirants in the interview, it is not open to the recruiting authorities to dilute in any manner the norms and standards prescribed by the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment for screening aspirants to be called for interview; however, it is always open to them to prescribe enhanced norms to have the zone of consideration for interview restricted to those aspirants satisfying the enhanced norms or higher criteria.
“In such cases, however, care has to be taken such that the enhanced norms or higher criteria are not susceptible to a challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or being contrary to the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment”, it added.
The Court, therefore, held that, while deciding a Writ Petition on the basis of Affidavits, the Writ Court’s enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the Writ Petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. It further enunciated that the findings of the Court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties and it is well-nigh impermissible for the Writ Court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing.
“Allahabad University and, for that matter, Allahabad Degree College are both bound by the UGC Act and the 2018 Regulations. Normally, if compliance with certain statutory provisions of a central statute bring about adverse result for a citizen, the said result has to be accepted by him/her because the statutory provisions are nothing but the will of the people of India expressed by the Parliament. The only exception is if the vires of the relevant statutory provision is challenged on either of the two available grounds of challenge, i.e., legislative incompetence and manifest repugnancy with any of the Constitutional rights, and the challenge succeeds on any one of such grounds”, it remarked.
The Court added that, in such a case, rights of the affected party invaded by the impugned statutory provision is protected by the Courts in the manner considered just and proper bearing in mind the facts and circumstances before it.
“Conditions of eligibility for entitlement to secure marks, which have been laid down, are matters of policy over which the courts have no expertise. Judicial review would not extend to cases of the present nature where regulations are framed by experts having a fair measure of idea of what is required and what is not for appointment on teaching posts. The Division Bench overstepped its limits and treaded a territory, which was forbidden”, also noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Division Bench completely erred in appreciating the contentious issues in the proper perspective vis-à-vis the law applicable thereto and returned findings which are not only unwarranted but are wholly unacceptable.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Allahabad University Etc. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. Etc. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1003)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AORs Tanmaya Agarwal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates Wrick Chatterjee, and Aditi Agarwal.
Respondents: Senior Advocate PKS Baghel, AORs Parul Shukla, Mrigank Prabhakar, Advocates Shubhangi Pandey, and Saday Mondol.
