Summary
The Supreme Court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, by which Punjab abolished only one of the private universities set up under its 2010 policy. A law aimed at a single entity is valid only if it rests on a reasonable classification and special circumstances shown by material before the legislature; the State showed neither. Its sole stated purpose, protecting the heritage of the separate Khalsa College, had no factual basis, making the law manifestly arbitrary. The 2016 Act was restored.
Issues
- Whether legislation that treats a single entity differently is valid under Article 14, and on what conditions.
- Whether the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, which singled out one of the private universities set up under the Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010, was discriminatory.
- Where the burden of proof lies when single-entity legislation is challenged as discriminatory.
- Whether the Repeal Act was liable to be struck down as manifestly arbitrary.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaApplied in both its aspects, discrimination through an invalid classification and manifest arbitrariness in legislation. The Repeal Act failed both: no reasonable classification set the University apart from the other private universities, and its stated purpose did not exist. (¶¶ 24, 38, 48, 53, 59, 62, 65)
- Sections 1 to 3 and Statement of Objects and Reasons, Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017The Act repealed the 2016 Act with effect from 30 May 2017 and provided for students to move to other institutions. Its only stated reason was to protect the heritage character of Khalsa College, Amritsar, which the Court found had no factual basis. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 56, 64, 65, 66)
- Statement of Objects and Reasons, Khalsa University Act, 2016The 2016 Act set up the University under the 2010 Policy to supplement State universities; on striking down the Repeal Act the Court directed it to be deemed in force. (¶¶ 16, 22, 66)
Held
- All the opinions in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri agreed that a law dealing with a single entity can be valid if it rests on a reasonable classification with a nexus to the object, distinguishing that entity from others in the same class. The majority placed the burden on the challenger; the dissenting judges held it discharged once the challenger shows he was singled out from a similarly placed class. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- Single-entity legislation must rest on a reasonable differentia and special circumstances. Those circumstances are to be gathered from the material before the legislature, including legislative debates; legislation upheld on this footing (Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri, S.P. Mittal, Dharam Dutt) followed enquiries and emergent, extreme situations. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- Legislation is presumed valid and the challenger bears the burden. But where the challenger specifically pleads hostile discrimination, as the University did by naming the other private universities, the State must answer that plea, even on the Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri majority view. (¶¶ 54, 57, 58, 59)
- The State's reply did not meet the discrimination plea and showed no compelling or emergent situation, prior discussion or material before the legislature. The Repeal Act singled out the University among the private universities without reasonable classification and was discriminatory under Article 14. (¶ 59)
- Following the majority in Shayara Bano, legislation may be struck down as manifestly arbitrary, meaning enacted capriciously, irrationally, without adequate determining principle, or in an excessive and disproportionate way; the ground is not to be used loosely. (¶¶ 61, 62)
- Khalsa College, the heritage institution of 1892, was not part of the University, which comprised only three later colleges. The appellants had undertaken that the College would not be touched or affiliated, and the site maps showed the other buildings bore no resemblance to it. An Act enacted for a non-existent purpose was manifestly arbitrary and void. (¶¶ 64, 65)
- The Court expressly declined to decide the allegations of mala fides against individuals involved in passing the Repeal Act. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 1 November 2017 set aside; writ petition allowed and the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 struck down as unconstitutional; the Khalsa University Act, 2016 deemed to be in force and the status quo as on 29 May 2017 restored. No order as to costs.