Case Summary
Case Name: Khalsa University & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 3rd October 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates:
Appellants: Shri P.S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel
Respondents: Shri Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate General
Acts and Sections:
Constitution of India, Article 14
Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017
Khalsa University Act, 2016
Cited Judgments:
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, [1950] SCR 869
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51
D.S. Reddy v. Chancellor, Osmania University, [1967] 2 SCR 214
Introduction
The Supreme Court's judgment in Khalsa University & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Anr. has significant implications for constitutional law, especially regarding Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. In this case, the appellants challenged the Punjab government's decision to repeal the Khalsa University Act, 2016 via the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017. The primary issue was whether the repeal was discriminatory and arbitrary under Article 14. The Supreme Court provided a nuanced analysis of legislative classification and the conditions under which a law affecting a single entity could be valid.
Background and Facts of the Case
Khalsa College Charitable Society, established in 1892, sought to create Khalsa University under the Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010. After receiving a Letter of Intent in 2011, the Punjab Legislature enacted the Khalsa University Act, 2016, allowing the establishment of Khalsa University in Amritsar. The university started functioning, enrolling students for the 2016-2017 academic year.
However, in 2017, after a change in government, the State of Punjab passed the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, which repealed the 2016 Act, citing concerns about protecting the heritage status of Khalsa College, Amritsar. The appellants, Khalsa University and Khalsa College Charitable Society, filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the repeal as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
Arguments by the Appellants: Shri P.S. Patwalia, representing the appellants, argued that the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. He contended that the State had enacted the 2010 Policy under which 16 private universities were established, yet only Khalsa University was singled out for repeal. This, he argued, amounted to discriminatory treatment. He further pointed out that the stated reason for the repeal, i.e., protecting the heritage status of Khalsa College, was based on a non-existent factual matrix since the appellants had already given an undertaking that the establishment of the university would not affect Khalsa College.
Arguments by the Respondents: Shri Shadan Farasat, representing the State of Punjab, argued that the classification of Khalsa University for repeal was justified. He stated that Khalsa College, a historic institution, had become an icon of Khalsa heritage, and the establishment of Khalsa University was likely to overshadow and harm its legacy. Therefore, repealing the 2016 Act was necessary to protect the historical significance of Khalsa College.
Key Legal Issues
Arbitrariness and Article 14: The central legal issue was whether the repeal of the Khalsa University Act, 2016 was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The appellants argued that singling out Khalsa University, while other universities established under the same policy were left untouched, was discriminatory and arbitrary.
Differential Treatment of a Single Entity: Another key issue was whether a law affecting a single entity (in this case, Khalsa University) could be valid under the Constitution. The court had to consider whether the classification of Khalsa University for repeal had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Judgment and Analysis
Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai delivered the judgment, analysing the principles governing the validity of legislation under Article 14. The Court made it clear that while a law can apply to a single entity, such legislation must be based on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus to the object it seeks to achieve.
“A law applying to a single person or entity is not per se unconstitutional, provided it is not discriminatory in character and is based on reasonable classification,” the Court stated, drawing from the precedent set in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India.
The Court examined the justification provided by the State of Punjab for the repeal and found that the sole reason cited, i.e., protecting the heritage status of Khalsa College, did not provide a sufficient basis for singling out Khalsa University for repeal. The appellants had already assured that the establishment of the university would not impact the college, and the two institutions could coexist without conflict.
The Court referred to previous judgments, such as S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, which allowed the government to intervene in the management of institutions when there was clear mismanagement or other compelling reasons. However, in this case, there was no evidence of mismanagement or any immediate threat to Khalsa College.
Justice Gavai emphasized that “where a financial, commercial, or social objective can be met through less intrusive means, such arbitrary singling out of an entity violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, declaring it unconstitutional under Article 14. The Court ruled that the legislation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked a valid basis for singling out Khalsa University.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that legislation affecting a single entity must be carefully scrutinised for arbitrariness and must be based on a rational and reasonable classification. The decision also emphasises that historical or cultural concerns, while important, cannot be used to justify arbitrary legislative actions.
In conclusion, the ruling in Khalsa University & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Anr. serves as a significant precedent for cases involving the protection of heritage and the intersection of private rights with public interest. The Court’s careful analysis of Article 14 ensures that legislation is not only fair but also transparent and justified in its objectives.
Comments