# MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 13 S.C.R. 464
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maharshi-mahesh-yogi-vedic-vishwavidyalaya-v-state-of-m-p-ors-28982
- **Pages:** 76

## Headnote

Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya
C Adhiniyam, 1995:
s. 4(1)(as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000) -
Constitutional validity of -. Establishment of the University -
With the objective of imparting knowledge in Vedas, and its
•
0 allied subjects - By issuing Ordinance, the University apart
from prime subjects on Vedas, also included numerous
professional courses - s. 4(1) amended to the effect that
disbursement of the knowledge by the University would be
confined only to the exclusive field of vedic teaming - Held:
E The University was established for imparting education in
Vedas and simultaneously to teach Sanskrit, Science and
technology and.for spreading knowledge in all fields - If the
scope of imparting knowledge is restricted only to vedic
learning by way of amendment, the very purpose of
establishing the University would be frustrated - Right to
F education is a fundamental right -
The University was
established mainly for imparting education - The amendment
creates an embargo on the right to education - Therefore, it
is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
and hence ultra vires, the Constitution - Constitution of India,
G 1950 - Articles 14, 21, 21A, 41, 45, 46 and 51A(k).
H
s. 4 Proviso (as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000)
- State Government stipulating condition on the University to
seek prior approval of State Government before conducting
464
..i.. -
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
465
STATEOFM.P
-
~
any course and before establishing any centre -
A
Constitutional validity of - Held: The subjects of conducting
of courses and establishment of centres are governed by s.
12 of University Grants Commission Act which fall within
exclusive realm of Entry 66 of List I and not under Entry 25
of List /II of VII Schedule of Constitution - Thus, the State
B
lacks legislative competence to stipulate the restrictions -
Constitution of India, 1950- VII Schedule, List I-Entry 66 and
List II-Entry 25 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
s. 9(2) (as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000) -
Procedure for appointment of Chancellor - Challenged -
C
Held: Though the appointment of Chancellor was subject to
approval of State Government, but such appointment could
be made only from the panel prepared by the Board of
Management -
Thus the procedure did not impinge upon
Constitutional or fundamental rights of the University and also
D
does not affect its autonomy.
Interpretation of Statutes - Determination of scope of
applicability of a statute .;.. By the aid of preamble to the statute
- Preamble cannot control the scope of applicability of the
E
statute - If the provision contained in the main Act are clear
and without any ambiguity and legislatjve intent is clear, there
is no need to look into the preamble.
Maxim - 'Noscitur a Sociis' - Applicability of - Held: This
rule of construction is not applicable to cases where it is clear
F
that the· wider words have been deliberately used in order to
make the scope of the defined words correspondingly wider.
Words and Phrases:
Dissemination of knowledge' - Meaning of.
Expression 'Gyan-Vigyan' - In the context of Maharshi
Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 -
Connotation of.
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
The appella.nt-University was created by the Maharshi
Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995
(1995 Act), which was to provide for education and
prosecution of research in vedic learnings and practices
and to provide for matters connected therewith or
B incidental thereto. The University framed Ordinance No.
15 which contained courses of studies. The Ordinance,
apart from prime subjects on Vedas, also included other
professional courses such as Project Management,
Human Resources Management, Financial Management,
C Marketing Management, Accounting and Auditing,
Banking, as well as vocational courses in typing,
stenography, secretarial practice, computer technology
marketing and sales, dress designing

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 152,911. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 464
A
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA
B
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2004)
JULY 3, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.)
Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya
C Adhiniyam, 1995:
s. 4(1)(as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000) -
Constitutional validity of -. Establishment of the University -
With the objective of imparting knowledge in Vedas, and its
•
0 allied subjects - By issuing Ordinance, the University apart
from prime subjects on Vedas, also included numerous
professional courses - s. 4(1) amended to the effect that
disbursement of the knowledge by the University would be
confined only to the exclusive field of vedic teaming - Held:
E The University was established for imparting education in
Vedas and simultaneously to teach Sanskrit, Science and
technology and.for spreading knowledge in all fields - If the
scope of imparting knowledge is restricted only to vedic
learning by way of amendment, the very purpose of
establishing the University would be frustrated - Right to
F education is a fundamental right -
The University was
established mainly for imparting education - The amendment
creates an embargo on the right to education - Therefore, it
is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
and hence ultra vires, the Constitution - Constitution of India,
G 1950 - Articles 14, 21, 21A, 41, 45, 46 and 51A(k).
H
s. 4 Proviso (as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000)
- State Government stipulating condition on the University to
seek prior approval of State Government before conducting
464
..i.. -
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
465
STATEOFM.P
-
~
any course and before establishing any centre -
A
Constitutional validity of - Held: The subjects of conducting
of courses and establishment of centres are governed by s.
12 of University Grants Commission Act which fall within
exclusive realm of Entry 66 of List I and not under Entry 25
of List /II of VII Schedule of Constitution - Thus, the State
B
lacks legislative competence to stipulate the restrictions -
Constitution of India, 1950- VII Schedule, List I-Entry 66 and
List II-Entry 25 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
s. 9(2) (as amended by Amendment Act 5 of 2000) -
Procedure for appointment of Chancellor - Challenged -
C
Held: Though the appointment of Chancellor was subject to
approval of State Government, but such appointment could
be made only from the panel prepared by the Board of
Management -
Thus the procedure did not impinge upon
Constitutional or fundamental rights of the University and also
D
does not affect its autonomy.
Interpretation of Statutes - Determination of scope of
applicability of a statute .;.. By the aid of preamble to the statute
- Preamble cannot control the scope of applicability of the
E
statute - If the provision contained in the main Act are clear
and without any ambiguity and legislatjve intent is clear, there
is no need to look into the preamble.
Maxim - 'Noscitur a Sociis' - Applicability of - Held: This
rule of construction is not applicable to cases where it is clear
F
that the· wider words have been deliberately used in order to
make the scope of the defined words correspondingly wider.
Words and Phrases:
Dissemination of knowledge' - Meaning of.
Expression 'Gyan-Vigyan' - In the context of Maharshi
Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 -
Connotation of.
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
The appella.nt-University was created by the Maharshi
Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995
(1995 Act), which was to provide for education and
prosecution of research in vedic learnings and practices
and to provide for matters connected therewith or
B incidental thereto. The University framed Ordinance No.
15 which contained courses of studies. The Ordinance,
apart from prime subjects on Vedas, also included other
professional courses such as Project Management,
Human Resources Management, Financial Management,
C Marketing Management, Accounting and Auditing,
Banking, as well as vocational courses in typing,
stenography, secretarial practice, computer technology
marketing and sales, dress designing and manufacturing,
textile designing and printing, horticulture, seed
0
production, crop production, sericulture, as well as, short
term courses in various international topics such. as,
political science, theory of Government, theory of
defense, theory of education, theory of management etc.
The appellant University was added in the list of
Universities maintained by the University Grants
E Commission, as provided under· Section 2(f) of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956, The appellant
University also opened up as many as 55 centers. The
Department of Higher Education, sent a memorandum,
alleging that the course of study prescribed in Clause 1 (i)
F and (j) of Ordinance No.15, were contrary to the aims and
objectives of the University and therefore, not acceptable.
Thereafter, the Amendment Act 5 of 2000 came to be
introduced. By Amendment Act 5 of 2000, the provisions
u/ss. 2, 4, 9, 17 of the Act were amended and ss. 31-A, 31G B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B were inserted to the Act. These
amendments and insertions were challenged by filing the
present writ petition and the same was partially allowed
by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present
appeal.
H
-
f
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VIS~AVIDYALAYA v.
467
STATE OF M.P.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: 1.1. The purport of establishing the appellantUniversity was to ensure that the ancient knowledge
embedded in Vedas, Upvedas, Agam Tantra, ltihas,
Puranas etc., are kept intact and the wealth of knowledge
8
contained in these Vedas, Upvedas etc., are not only
spread by establishing an institution, but by teaching
them through well established institutions and thereby,
ensuring that such wealth of knowledge is kept intact for
the future generations to come. [Para 9] (486-8-C]
c
1.2. Though under Section 4(1 ), reference to Vedic
learning and its allied subjects was made in the opening
sentence, the University was not established for the
purpose of imparting education in Vedas alone, but it was
intended for spreading the knowledge of Vedas and
D
simultaneously to teach Sanskrit, science and technology
and also as specifically mentioned in Section 4, for
spreading of knowledge in all fields. [Para 69] (512-E-G]
1.3. By virtue of the amendment introduced to
E
Section 4(1), an embargo has been clearly created in
one's right to seek for education, which is a
Constitutionally protected Fundamental Right. Therefore,
there was .a clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution and consequently, such a provision by way
F
of an amendment cannot stand the scrutiny of the Court
of Law. [Para 80] [519-F-G]
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs.
Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1: 2012 (2) SCR 715; Bhartiya
• '""
Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel (2012) 9 G
SCC 310: 2012 (7) SCR 1054; State of T.N. vs. K. Shyam
Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737: 2011 (11) SCR 1094; Satimbla
Sharma vs. St. Paul's Sr. Sec. School (2011) 13 SCC 760:
2011 (10) SCR 203; Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India
(2008) 6 SCC 1: 2008 (4) SCR 1 - relied on.
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
1.4. Right to Education is a Fundamental Right.
Imparting of education is a Fundamental Right, in as
much as, the establishment of the appellant University
was mainly for the purpose of imparting education, while
promotion of Vedic learning is one of the primary
B objectives of the University. Any attempt on the part of
the State to interfere with the said main object viz.,
imparting of education, would amount to an infringement
of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under the
Constitution. Consequently, the amendment, which was
c introduced to Section 4(1) and also the insertion of"the
proviso, has to be held ultra-vires. [Para 80] [520-C-E]
1.5. Framing of the Ordinance 15, which provided for
the study on various courses in the appellant University
was consciously approved by the State Govern-ment
D without any inhibition. A perusal of the course contents
in the Ordinance discloses that there were as ma"ny as
49 courses connected with Vedic learning and practices
and about 33 courses on other subjects. By introducing
the amendment under Act 5 of 2000 and thereby, insisting
E that imparting of education in the appellant University
can be restricted only to Vedic learning and that the
science and technology shduld also be only for the
purpose of learning Vedas and its practices, is creating
a formidable restriction on the right to education, which
F is a guaranteed Constitutional right and thereby, clearly
violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Equally,
the addition of the expression "in the above fields and
in these fields may ......... " while deleting the expression
"dissemination of knowledge", drastically interfered with
G the right to education sought to be advanced by the
University by its creation originally under the 1995 Act,
which restriction now sought to be imposed can never
be held to be a reasonable restriction, nor can it be held
to have any rationale, while creating such a restriction by
H way of an amendment to Section 4(1). [Para 79] [518-H;
519-A-D]
- ,,..
-
)(
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
469
STATE OF M.P.
1.6. Dissemination of learning is for acquisition of A
knowledge in every kind of discipline and that such a
perception should be maintained at all cost.
"Dissemination of knowledge" as it originally stood in
Section 4(1 ), which was deleted by way of the
Amendment Act 5 of 2000, caused havoc by restricting
B
the scope of acquisition of knowledge to be gathered by
an individual from the facilities made available in the
appellant University. [Para 83] [521-E-G]
lshwar Singh Bindra and Ors. vs. State of UP. AIR 1968
C
SC 1450: 1969 SCR 219 - relied on.
Osmania University Teachers' Association vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another (1987) 4 SCC 671: 1987 (3)
SCR 949 - referred to.
1.7. The deletion of the expression "dissemination of
knowledge", will have to be held to be an arbitrary action
D
of the respondent State and thereby, violating equality in
law and equal protection of law as enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution, in as much as all other
E
Universities, which were being controlled and
administered by the State by the 1973 Act, enjoy the
freedom of setting up any course with the approval of the
University Grants Commission, the appellant alone would
be deprived of such a right and liberty by restricting the
scope of imparting education in an.y field other than
Vedas and its practices. [Para 88] [523-F-G]
1.8. The legal maxim Noscitur A Sociis, is merely a
rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where
F
it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately G
used in order to make the scope of the defined word
correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of
the Legislature in associating wider words with words of
narrower significance is doubtful or otherwise not clear
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A that the present rule of construction namely Noscltur A
"'I -
Sociis can be usefully applied. [Para 58) [508-C·D)
State of Bombay and others vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
and others AIR 1960 SC 610: 1960 SCR 866; Ronit Pulp and
B Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1991 SC
754: 1990 (2) SCR 797; Kera/a State Housing Board and
others vs. Ramapriya Hotels (P) Ltd. and others (1994) 5 SCC
672: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 338; Samantha vs. State Qf
Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3297: 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR
~
,
'-" r
c 305; K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy and others Vs. K. P. Ballakuraya
and another AIR 1999 SC 2143: 1999 (2) SCR 438;
....._
Brindavan Bangle Stores and others vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another AIR 2000
SC 691: 2000 (1) SCR 97; CBI, AHD, Patna Vs. Braj
D
Bhushan Prasad and others AIR 2001 SC 4014: 2001 (3)
Suppl. SCR 627 - relied on.
~
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3
SCC 436: 2011 (2) SCR 704; Ramesh Rout vs. Rabindra
Nath Rout (2012) 1 SCC 762: 2011 (16) SCR 254; State of
E Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Sripal Jain AIR 1963 SC 1323: 1964
SCR 742; Mis. Shriram Vinyl and Chemical Industries vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2001) 4 SCC 286;
Union of India (UOI) and Anr. vs. Hansoli Devi and Ors. (2002)
7 SCC 273: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 324 - referred to.
F
1.9. Though the expression 'and' has been used,
prior to the expression 'promotion and development of
the study of Sanskrit.. .. .' and again prior to the set of
expression 'for the advancement' and again prior to the
set of expression 'dissemination of knowledge', the
G context in which the Legislation was brought into force
and reading the said section along with the Preamble and
other sub clauses of Section 4, the expression 'and' has
to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. Therefore,
in the present case, the expression 'dissemination of
H knowledge', as well as 'promotion and development of
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
471
STATE OF M.P.
-
/.-
the study of Sanskrit' and 'to make provision for A
research', were all expressions which have been used
disjunctively and not conjunctively with the words Vedic
learning and practice. [Para 95] [527-D-G]
lshwar Singh Bindra and Ors. vs. State of UP. AIR 1968
SC 1450: 1969 SCR 219; Prof Yashpal and Anr. vs. State
B
of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) (2005) 5 SCC 420: 2005 (2) SCR
23; Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and
-
~
Investment Co. Ltd. Others 1987 (1) SCC 424: 1987 (2) SCR
1; Joint Director of Mines and Safety vs. T & N Stone c
-
Quarries (P) Ltd. (1987) 3 SCC 208: 1987 (2) SCR 801 -
relied on.
Utkal Contractors and Joiners Pvt. Ltd. and Ors vs. State
of Orissa and others (1987) 3 SCC 279: 1987 (3) SCR 317
- held inapplicable.
D
Green vs. Premier Glynrhonwy State Co. (1928) 1 KB
561; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vs. Henderson Bros.
(1888) 13 AC 595 - referred to.
1.10. So far as the expression "promotion and
E
development of the study of Sanskrit as the University
may from time to time determine" is concerned, the study
~~
of Sanskrit is totally unconnected to the learning of
Vedas and its allied subjects, except that the scripts of
Vedas may be in Sanskrit. For that purpose, there need
F
not necessarily be a specific provision to the effect that
there should be promotion and development of the study
of Sanskrit. Therefore, apart from Vedic learning and its
practices, the establishment of the appellant University
was for the purpose of providing education in the field
G
of science and technology, intensive learning of Sanskrit
and provision for research in every other field for the
advancement and disbursement of knowledge. Only
such an interpretation to the un-amended Section 4(1)
would be the only way of interpretation that can be
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A accorded to the said provision. In view of such
interpretation, the amendment which was introduced by
Act 5 of 2000, was clearly intended to purposely do away
with its original intendment and.thereby, restrict the
scope of activities of the appellant University to the
B learning of Vedas and its practices and nothing else. The
restriction so created by introducing the amendment was
self-destructive and thereby, the original object and
purpose of establishing the appellant University was
done away with. [Paras 78 and 79] [518-B-G]
c
1.11. The expression Gyan-Vigyan was specifically
mentioned in Section 4(1), not merely to make a scientific
, study of what is contained in Vedas, as even such a study
may not fulfill the purpose for which the University was
created. If a scientific study exclusively about Vedas is
D made for that purpose alone a creation of a University
would not have been necessitated. On the other hand, it
is the other way around, in as much as Vedas contains
very many scientific subjects such as, mathematics,
study about atoms, human anatomy and physiology and
E other formulae. At this juncture, the inclusion of the
expression "Gyan-Vigyan", will have to be understood to
have been inserted with a view to study modern science
and technology as it exists and study the same in
consonance with the basic principles contained in Vedas
F ·and Puranas. In fact, such an approach, while reading the
provisions would be the proper way of reading the said
provisions. Gyan Vigyan is nothing but a systematic
study of science through senses by applying one's mind
with absolute consciousness. If it is the meaning to be
G attributed to the expression "Gyan Vigyan", it will have
to be held that the said expression used in Section 4(1)
cannot be restricted to a mere study on Vedas and its
practices. Such a narrow interpretation will be doing
violence to the whole concept of Gyan Vigyan, which is
H the combination of human senses, mind and
-
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
4 73
STATE OF M.P.
consciousness, which should be applied to every aspect A
of human life, which would include all other academic
subjects viz., science, mathematics, philosophy,
management, etc. [Para 77] [517-B-G; 518-A-B]
1.12. Establishment of the University as the Preamble
8
goes to state was to provide for education in the
forefront. It will be appropriate to hold that such a
provision for education in so far as the appellant
University was concerned, should concentrate and focus
in the prosecution of research in Vedic learning and
C
practices and to provide for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto. Merely because such specific
reference was made to prosecution of research in Vedic
learnings, if it is could be held that the imparting of
education in the appellant University should be restricted
to the said subject alone and not in any other subject,
D
such a narrow interpretation would be doing violence to
the very basic concept of education, and would create a
serious restrain on the University, where, imparting of
education is the primary objective and dealing with any
specific subject may· be for enabling any one to acquire
E
special knowledge on such subjects. In other words, any
such restrictive interpretation would go against the basic
tenets of the concept of education, which no Court can
venture to state. [Paras 74 and 75) [515-8-F]
1.13. The Preamble cannot control the scope of the
applicability of the Act. If the provision contained in the
main Act are clear and without any ambiguity and the
purpose of the Legislation can be thereby duly
F
, ""
understood without any effort, there is no necessity to
G
even look into the Preamble for that purpose. [Para 84)
[522-A-B]
Union of India vs. E/phinstone Spinning and Weaving Co.
Ltd. and others etc. AIR 2001 SC 724: 2001 (1) SCR 221 -
relied on.
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
1.14. It is the statutory provision, which will have to
be read and analyzed for the purpose of understanding
the scope and purport for which the Legislation was
intended and the brief statement contained in the
Preamble will be of very little value. Even a reading of the
B Preamble shows the importance attached to imparting of
education in the appellant University, as has been
highlighted in the forefront while making a mention about
the other aspects of providing scope for research
oriented education on Vedas and its practices by the
c appellant University. [Para 86] [522-H; 523-A-B]
1.15. Vedas has not left any subject untouched. The
Division Bench has noted the various fields, which have
been dealt with and associated in Vedas. The Division
Bench has gone to the extent of saying that some
D scientists have seen the atomic dance in the deity of
'Natraj'. It has also been noted that mathematic formulae
are much· more concise and precise in Vedas. It is said
that Vedic learning is concerned with human anatomy
and physiology. It was further found that there were
E enough materials in Vedas, which pertains to seed
production, crop production, sericulture, health care,
management, beauty culture, marketing and accounting.
[Para 76) [515-H; 516-A-C]
F
1.16. According to the Maharshi, who was the man
behind the establishment of the appellant University, in
order to develop the limitless inner potential of students
and teachers, the only solution is education and to achieve
that end, according to him, ancient Vedic sciences have
G to be revived and the knowledge for systematic unfolding
the range of human consciousness. In fact, this
knowledge was stated to be Maharshi technology of the
unified field, which included Transcendental Meditation
and Transcendental Meditation Siddhi Programmes. It is
also stated that Transcendental Meditation is learnt by
H
-<.
-
)Y
.....
- ~
-
~
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VIS..WVAVIDYAlAYA v.
4 7 5
STATE OF M.P.
more than three million people worldwide and
A
implemented in public and private educational institutions
in more than 20 countries through Universities, colleges,
schools and educational institutions. Therefore,
considering the very purport and intent of the Maharshi,
who relentlessly fought for the establishment of the
appellant University for nearly four decades and ultimately
achieved the said objective for establishing the University,
B
it can never be held that his sole purport was only to
spread vedic learning and nothing else. Therefore, by
virtue of the amendment, the un-amended Section 4(1') will c
become meaningless and that the very purport of
establishing the appellant University would become a
futile exercise, if it were to restrict its courses only to mere
Vedic learning, without providing scope for learning all
other incidental and ancillary subjects dealt with by Vedas
0
viz., all other worldly subjects such as, Project
Management, Finance Management, Crop Management,
Human Resource Management, mathematics and other
sciences for which fundamental basic provisions have
been prescribed in Vedas and practices including,
Darshan, Agam Tantra, ltihas, Puranas and Upvedas. [Para
E
76] [516-C-H; 517-A-B]
1.17. The appellant University has proceeded to
establish its institution for the purpose of imparting
education by making huge investments. A major part of
F
which would have definitely come by way of fees
collected from the students who had joined the institution
aspiring for improving their educational career, it is the
responsibility of the State to ensure that such high
expectation of the students who joined the appellant G
University is not impaired and that for whatever expenses
incurred by the students, appropriate returns should be
provided to them by way of ·imparting education in the
respective fields which, they choose to associate
themselves by getting themselves admitted in the
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A appellant University. Therefore, such expectations of the
students, as well as their parents cannot be dealt with so
very lightly by the State, while considering for any
change to be brought about in the Constitution and
functioning of the appellant University. It can therefore be
B validly held that such expectations of the students and
their parents, as well as that of the appellant University,
can validly be held to be a legitimate expectation and
_considering the challenge made to the amendment
introduced on various grounds raised at the instance of
, c the appellant, the legitimate expectation of the appellant
University, as well as the student community, would also
equally support the contentions of the appellant
University, while challenging the amendments in
particular the amendment introduced to Section 4(1 ), as
0 well as the addition of a proviso to the said Section. [Para
11 O] [536-B-G]
1.18. The establishment of the appellant University at
the repeated persuasion of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi was
definitely to provide full-fledged education on Vedas and
E the various intricate subjects, which are found in Vedas,
as well as its practices, lthihas, Puranas etc. In fact, there
can be no two opinion that such an institution with such
a laudable objective for imparting education in different
fields based on the teachings in Vedas, was very rare and
F it is said that the appellant University is stated to be an
unique University created and established by the
founders of the said institution headed by Maharshi
Mahesh Yogi. Therefore, when such a premium
University, which is stated to be only one of its kind in
G the whole of the Country was successfully established
based on the 1995 Act, such a well established institution
should be allowed to survive by enabling the said
University to con.duct courses as has been planned by
it and introduced under Ordinance 15 and thereby, make
H the appellant University a viable one. Such an approach
-
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
477
STATE OF M.P.
-
~
alone, ensure the successful existence and continued
A
running of the University in the further years and thereby,
benefit very many aspirants from among the younger
generation who wish to learn more and more about very
many subjects by understanding such subjects based on
the teachings that are found and established in Vedic
8
learnings, its practices, lthihas and Puranas etc.
Therefore, on this ground as well, any attempt made from
any quarters, which would disrupt the running of the
..
·~
.
appellant University, will only amount to interfering with
its various Constitutional rights and fundament~I rights c
enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, when such
interference is brought to the notice of this Court, the
Court has to necessarily come to the rescue of the
appellant University by saving it from any such onslaught
being made on its continued existence. [Para 111] [536D
-..
G-H; 537-A-F]
)-.
Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483(1954) -
referred to.
Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 3
E
SCC 666: 1992 (3) SCR 658; Unni Krishnan J.P. and others
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1993) 1 ·SCC 645:
1993 (1) SCR 594; M. C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
,.
others (1996) 6 sec 756: 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 726;
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and others (1997)
F
·'
10 SCC 549: 1997 (2) SCR 379; P.A. lnamdar and others
vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537: 2005
(2) Suppl. SCR 603; Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless
General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Others 1987
~ ~
(2) SCR 1; Utkal Contractors and Joiners Pvt. Ltd.and Ors vs.
G
State of Orissa and ors. (1987) 3 sec 279: 1987 (3) SCR
317 - referred to.
2.1. The proviso added to Section 4 is to the effect
that no courses should be conducted and no centers
should be established or run without the prior approval
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A of the State Government. It is bef:nd the legislative
~ -:
competence of the State Legislat re to stipulate any
restriction, as regards the conduc of the courses by
getting the approval of the State Government and such
lack of competence would equally apply to the running
B of the centers as well. Section 12 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 would encompass apart from
determining the course contents with reference to which
the standard of teaching and its maintenance is to be
monitored by the University Grants Commission, would
• •
c also include the infrastructure that may be made
available, either in the University or in other c~mpuses,
such as the centers, in order to ensure that such
standard of education, teaching and examination, as well
as research are maintained without any fall in standard.
D [Paras 98 and 105) [528-F; 534-A-D]
"
2.2. The running of centers by the appellant
Joe
University would fall within the exclusive realm of Entry
66 of List - I, and not under Entry 25 of List Ill of VII
Schedule of the Constitution, which would in turn be
E governed by Section 12 of the University Grants
Commission Act and consequently the State Government
to that extent should be held to lack the necessary
legislative competence to meddle with such centers set
up by the appellant University. The entire proviso to
~
F Section 4(1) has to be held to be ultra-vires. [Paras 108
and 109) (535-E-F]
Prof. Yashpal and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Ors.) (2005) 5 SCC 420: 2005 (2) SCR 23; R. Chitralekha
G vs. State of Mysore AIR 1964 SC 1823: 1964 SCR 368; The
)- ..
Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath
Mudho/kar and Ors. 1963 Supp (1) SCR 112; Osmania
Universtity Teachers' Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Anr. 1987 (3) SCR 949; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another
H
Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR
249; Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government,
- ~
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYAl.AYA v.
4 79
STATE OF M.P
Information and Tourism Department) (2009) 4 SCC 590:
A
2009 (3) SCR 355; State of Tamil Nadu vs. S. V.Bratheep
(2004) 4 SCC 513: 2004 (2) SCR 1218; State of Tamil Nadu
and Anr. vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute
and others) (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075; Gujarat
University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar)
B
1963 Supp. 1 SCR 112 - relied on.
3. Under the un-amended s. 9(2) of 1995 Act, after the
first Chancellor viz., Maharshi Mahesh Yogi, the Board of
Management was empowered to appoint the Chancellor C
from among the persons of eminence and renowned
scholar of Vedic education who can hold office for a term
of five years and who would be eligible for
reappointment. Under the amended Section 9(2), it was
stipulated that after the first Chancellor, the Board of
Management should prepare and submit a panel of three
D
persons to the State Government and out of the panel,
one person should be appointed as Chancellor by the
Board of Management, after obtaining the approval of the
State Government. As far as the period of holding office
was concerned, there was no change in its terms. Even
E
after the amendment, the Management had the power of
recommendation and they could recommend a person of
eminence and renowned scholar of Vedic education and
even if the ultimate appointment is to be made with the
approval of the State Government, since any such
F
appointment can be only from the panel prepared by the
Board of management, such a stipulation contained in
the amendment does not in any way impinge upon any
right, much less the Constitutional Right or Fundamental
Right of the appellant University, nor does it affect the
G
autonomy of the appellant University. [Paras 112 and 113)
[538-C-G]
Case Law Reference
347 U.S. 483(1954)
referred to
Para 23
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
'4 -
A
1992 (3) SCR 658
referred to
Para 29
-
1993 (1) SCR 594
referred to
Para 30
1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 726 referred to
Para 31
8
1997 (2) SCR 379
referred to
Para 32
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 referred to
Para 41
2011 (2) SCR 704
referred to
Para 53
}
~.
2011 (16) SCR 254
referred to
Para 53
c
1964 SCR 742
referred to
Para 53
(2001 > 4 sec 286
referred to
Para 53
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 324 referred to
Para 53
D
1969 SCR 219
relied on
Para 54
-k
1987 (2) SCR 801
relied on
Para 54
2005 (2) SCR 23
relied on
Para 54
E
1995 (2) SCR 1075
relied on
Para 55
1963 Supp. 1 SCR 112
relied on
Para 55
1960 SCR 866
relied on
Para 58.
F
1990 (2) SCR 797
relied on
Para 58
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 338 relied on
Para 58
1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 305 relied on
Para 58
1999 (2) SCR 438
relied on
Para 58
G
)-
'
2000 (1) SCR 97
relied on
Para 58
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 627 relied on
Para 58
1964 SCR 368
relied on
Para 65
H
1963 Supp (1) SCR 112 relied on
Para 65
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
481
STATE OF M.P.
- ~
1987 (3) SCR 949
relied on
Para 65
A
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 relied on
Para 65
2009 (3) SCR 355
relied on
Para 65
2004 (2) SCR 1218
relied on
Para 65
B
1987 (2) SCR 1
referred to
Para 67
1987 (3) SCR 317
referred to
Para 67
""'
2012 (2) SCR 715
relied on
Para 80(i)
...
c
2012 (7) SCR 1054
relied on
Para 80(ii)
2011 (11) SCR 1094
relied on
Para 80(iii)
2011 (10) SCR 203
relied on
Para 80(iv)
2008 (4) SCR 1
relied on
Para 80(v)
D
,;
1987 (3) SCR 949
relied on
Para 82
2001 (1) SCR 221
relied on
Para 85
1987 (3) SCR 317
held inapplicable Para 87
E
1987 (2) SCR 1
relied on
Para 88
1987 (2) SCR 801
relied on
Para 93
."-.
(1928) 1 KB 561
referred to
Para 95
F
(1888) 13 AC 595
referred to
Para 95
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6736 of 2004.
....
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2002 of the High
G
Court of Judicature at M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 1065 of
2001.
L. Nageshwar Rao, Santosh Kumar, V. Sushant Gupta {for
Mushtaq Ahmad), Vibha Datta Makhija, Archi Agnihotri, Varun
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A Thakur, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Chander Shekhar Ashri for
~ -
the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. This
appeal is directed against the Division Bench decision of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dated 20.03.2002,
in W.P.No.1065 of 2001, in and by which, the Division Bench
allowed the writ petition in part. The challenge in the writ petition
/>'
·-.-
was to the amendment introduced to Sections 2, 4, 9 and 17,
c as well as insertion of Sections 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B
to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya
Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995), hereinafter referred to
as "1995 Act". The amendment was by way of Amendment Act
No.5 of 2000, hereinafter called the "Amendment Act".
D
2. The Division Bench upheld the amendment to Section
4( 1) of 1995 Act. The Division Bench also held that the
amendment to Sections 9(2), 31-A(1) and (2), 31-B, 31-C, 37B(a}, 37-B(b), 37-B(d) and 37-B (e) are intra-vires. The Division
E Bench further held that the proviso to Section 4 is intra-vires,
as far as it provides that no Centres shall be established without
prior approval of the State Government and no centre would
mean no further Centres excluding the existing ones. The
Division Bench further held that the said proviso as far as it
>.
F
stipulated that no courses should be conducted or run without
the prior approval of the State Government is ultra-vires, as far
as, it related to the present stream of courses and the existing
Centres. Section 37-A was held to be ultra-vires in its entirety.
Section 37-8 (e} was held to be not ultra-vires.
G
3. To understand the scope of challenge made in this
,_
appeal, the brief facts are required to be stated. The appellant
is the University, which was a creation by way of a Statute viz.,
1995 Act. Therefore, in the forefront, it will be better to note the
scheme of the Act, which received the assent of the Governor
H on 25th November 1995 and was published in the Madhya
.....
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VIS...rNAVIDYAl.AYA v.
483
STATE OF M.P. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
Pradesh Gazette dated 29th November 1995. The Preamble
A
of the Act would state that it was an Act to establish and
incorporate a University, in the State of Madhya Pradesh and
to provide for education and prosecution of research in Vedic
learnings and practices and to provide for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 defines the various
B
expressions, including the expressions "Board of
Management", "Distance Education System", "Institution",
"Statutes" and "Ordinance" and the definition of "University"
under Section 2(u) mean~ the appellant University. Again
Section 3(1) refers to the appellant University and Section 3(2) c
refers to the headquarters of the University to be at village
Karondi in District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, providing for
establishment of campuses at such other places within its
jurisdiction. Under sub-section (3) to Section 3, the First
Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and the first Members of the Board
0
of Management of the Academic Council etc., has been set out.
4. The crucial section is Section 4 and in particular subclause (1) of Section 4, which refers to the powers of the
·University, which specifically states that such power would
provide for instruction in all branches of Vedic Learning, as well
E
as promotion and development of the study of Sanskrit, as the
University may from time to time determine and also to make
provision for research and for the advancement and
dissemination of knowledge.
F
5. Sub-clauses (ii) to (xxviii) of Section 4 refers to the
various other powers such as granting diplomas and
certificates; to organize and undertake extra-mural studies;
conferment of honorary degree; facilities for distance education
system; to recognize an institution of higher learning for such
G
purposes as the University may determine; to recognize
persons for imparting instructions in any college or institution
maintained by the University; to appoint persons working in any
other University or organization, as a teacher of the University
for a specific period; to create teaching, as well as
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A administrative posts; to co-operate or collaborate with any other
....
University or authority; to establish other campus, special
centers, specified laboratories etc., to institute and award
fellowships, scholarships etc., to establish and maintain
colleges and institutions; to make provision for research and
B advisory service; to organize and conduct refresher courses;
to make special arrangements for teaching women students;
to appoint on contract or otherwise visiting professors, scholars;
to confer autonomous status on a college or an institution or a
,_
~
department; to determine standards of admission of the
,.._
c University etc.; to fix quota for reserved class students; to
demand and receive payment of fees and other charges; to take
care of the hostels of the students with other inmates of the
college; to lay down conditions of service of all categories of
employees; to frame discipline; to receive benefications, gifts,
D etc., and to do all such other acts and things as may be
necessary, incidental or conducive for attainment of all or any
:..:
of its objects.
6. Section 5 states that the jurisdiction of the University
would extend to the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The
E status of the Chancellor has been described in Section 9. Subsection (1) of Section 9 recognizes the status of Maharshi
MaheshYogi as its first Chancellor, who was entitled to hold
office during his lifetime. Sub-section (2) to Section 9 provides
>-.
the manner in which the next Chancellor can be appointed by
F the Board of Management and the qualification and eligibility
for appointment as Chancellor. Section 10 deals with the
position of the Vice Chancellor, qualification and procedure for
filling up of the said post. Section 11 deals with the status of
the Pro-Vice Chancellor. Sections 12, 13 and 14 deals with the
G position of Deans of Schools, the Registrar and the Finance
f
Officer of the appellant University.
7. Section 15 deals with the manner of appointment,
powers and duties of the other officers of the University, which
H
has to be prescribed by the Statutes. Sections 17 and 18
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA v.
485
- ...
STATE OF M.P [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
specifically deal with the power of the Board of Management
A
and its constitution. Section 19 deals with the Academic
Council, while Section 20 deals with the Planning Board and
Section 24 enumerates the powers to make Statutes and the
provisions to be contained therein. Section 25 enumerates as
to how the Statues has.to be made. Section 26 stipulates as
B
to how all Ordinances should be made. Section 28 deals with
the preparation of annual report of the University, including the
~ ~
annual accounts and the balance sh~et duly audited .by a
chartered accountant under the direction of the Board of
Management. Sections 30 and 31 prescribe the procedure for c
appeal and arbitration in disciplinary cases against students.
Section 32 deals with the creation of provident and pension
funds.