Supreme Court Quashes Khalsa University Repeal Act: Holds Targeting of Single University Without Justification as Arbitary and Unconstitutional, Reaffirms Protection Against Discriminatory Legislation

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court quashed the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, which had annulled the earlier Khalsa University Act, 2016. The court held that singling out Khalsa University for differential treatment was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed that the State failed to establish a reasonable classification or demonstrate that the Khalsa University posed any credible threat to the heritage status of the Khalsa College.

Facts:

1. Policy Formation: In 2010, the Punjab Government introduced the “Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010,” to facilitate the establishment of self-financing private universities in the State.
2. Establishment of Khalsa University: Based on this policy, the Khalsa College Charitable Society, Amritsar, applied to set up a university named Khalsa University in Amritsar. The Government issued a Letter of Intent on 5th March 2011.
3. Legislative Approval: The Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed the Khalsa University Act, 2016, to formally establish Khalsa University, and the Act received the Governor’s assent on 7th November 2016.
4. Admissions and Operations: For the academic session 2016-17, 215 students were admitted to 26 different programs at Khalsa University.
5. Repeal Act: Subsequently, the State Government promulgated an Ordinance on 30th May 2017, repealing the Khalsa University Act. This Ordinance was formalized into the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and received the Governor’s assent on 4th July 2017.
6. Challenging the Repeal Act: Aggrieved by the repealing act, Khalsa University and the Khalsa Society filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the writ. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by targeting a single university?
2. Whether the State Government’s action lacked any reasonable classification or legitimate justification for repealing the 2016 Act?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The appellants contended that the Repeal Act was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, as it targeted only Khalsa University, leaving other private universities established under the same 2010 Policy unaffected.
2. The Repeal Act was based on an erroneous assumption that Khalsa University would undermine the heritage status of the Khalsa College. The appellants argued that Khalsa College was not impacted by the University’s establishment and that the latter was set up with a focus on providing higher education without affecting the former’s character.
3. It was submitted that several statements made by the Chief Minister of Punjab, prior to assuming office, indicated malice and a predetermined intention to abolish Khalsa University.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State argued that the Repeal Act was aimed at preserving the heritage character of Khalsa College, which, being an iconic institution, held significant historical and cultural importance.
2. The respondents contended that Khalsa University’s establishment led to confusion, as it shared premises with Khalsa College and posed a threat to the latter’s heritage status.
3. The State justified its action as a necessary legislative measure to protect public interest and maintain the distinct identity of Khalsa College.

Analysis of the Law:

The Supreme Court analyzed whether a single-entity legislation like the Repeal Act could be justified under Article 14. It observed that:

1. Reasonable Classification: While a single-entity legislation is permissible if based on a reasonable classification, such classification must have a nexus with the object to be achieved.
2. Absence of Justification: The court found that the State failed to substantiate any significant distinction between Khalsa University and the other 16 private universities established under the same policy.
3. Arbitrary Discrimination: The reasoning in the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) of the Repeal Act was based on subjective assessments rather than an objective evaluation of facts.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India (1950): The court reaffirmed that a legislation affecting a single entity must be based on a rational basis and must be preceded by an adequate factual foundation.
2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The court emphasized the principle of manifest arbitrariness, holding that any action devoid of a sound rationale must be struck down.
3. D.S. Reddy v. Chancellor, Osmania University (1967): The court reiterated that singling out an entity without reasonable justification amounts to hostile discrimination.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court concluded that the Repeal Act lacked any reasonable basis for targeting Khalsa University. It found that the State’s rationale, based on preserving the heritage status of Khalsa College, was not supported by any credible evidence. The court highlighted that the University and the College were distinct entities operating independently, and there was no interference by the University in the College’s functioning.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, declaring it unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. The court ordered the restoration of the Khalsa University Act, 2016, thereby allowing the University to resume its functioning.

Implications:

The judgment reinforces the principle that a State’s legislative actions must be based on reasonable classification and should not target specific institutions or entities arbitrarily. The decision ensures that legislative measures are backed by objective justifications, preventing discriminatory actions against particular entities.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds University’s “No Rank Violation” Policy for Offline Counseling: “Admission Process to Ensure Merit-Based Allocation Even in Special Rounds”