# STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR v. ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1075
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1634-35 E of 1990
- **Bench:** P.B. Sawant, S.C. Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-v-adhiyaman-educational-and-research-institute-and-12847
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

A
B
Constitution of India, 1950 : Emry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III
Schedule VII-Subjects covered by Entry 66-Always remained within the
pu1View of Parliament even before and after Forty Second Amendment-Entry C
25 List Ill-State legislation in conflict with Central legislation including subordinate legislation-Held: To the extent it is in conflict it is void and inoperative.
Article 254-Subjects covered by List III-Repugnancy between State
and Central legislation-State legislation would be inoperative unless saved D
by Article 254(2)-Pre-Constitutional law of Provincial Legislature--PostConstitutional law of Parliament-Repugnancy between-Held: Law made by
the Provincial Legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of
repugnancy.
Education : All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987:
Technical Education-Subject covered by the statut&-Within the scope
of Entry 66 of List l and Entry 25 of List III.
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 : Technical
Educatio~rovisions of the Act in conflict with Central Act-To the extent
of inconsistency Act voi~Standards and requirement laid down by
Stat&-Cannot be higher than those laid down by the Central Act-Applicants
not qualified according to such higher standards-State cannot deny situations/seats to such applicants-State also cannot derecognise or disaffiliate
an institution on this ground.
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 : Rule
E
F
G
'
2(b )-Not applicable to technical Colleges-However, mle can be amended
and made applicable to technical Colleges.
Madras University Act, 1923: Pre-Constitutional law-Repugnant to the H
1075
•
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A Central Act-University Act stands impliedly repealed to the extent of repugB
nancy-Conditions presoibed by University for grant of affiliation-Will have
+ -·
to be in conj onnity with the nomis and guidelines presoibed under Central
Act.
Words & Phrases: "Coordination''-Meaning and scope of
"College''-Meaning of
The State Government had permitted private management to start
new Engineering Colleges under the Self-financing scheme without any
financial commitment to the Government, but subject to the fulfillment of
C certain conditions. The first respondent - Trust was granted permission
by the Government to start a private Engineering College. The Trust was
granted provisional affiliation by the University subject to the fulfilment
of certain conditions.
D
In the meanwhile, the State Government appointed a High Power
Committee to inspect the College which stated that the Trust had not
fulfilled certain conditions imposed by the State Government. Thereupon,
the State Government issued a show cause notice to the Trust as to why
permission granted by it should not be withdrawn. The University also
accepted the report of the High Power Committee and passed a resolution
E cancelling the provisional affiliation.
F
The Trust filed a writ petition before the High Court for prohibiting
the Government from taking further action in pursuance of the Show
Cause notice and also for quashing the resolution passed by the University which was allowed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the
appellants preferred the present appeals and SLPs.
_ ---(
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution did not debar the State
Legislature from prescribing higher standards; that the University had the
G power to affiliate or disaffiliate the College; and that if the College were to
close down for want of adequate infrastructure the Government might have
to bear the burden in taking over the College.
Dismissing the appeals and the SLPs, this Court
H
HELD: 1.1. Repugnancy may arise between a legislation made by
-I
}
STATE OFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT.
1077
Parliament and a legislation enacted by the State legislature on a subject A
falling in the Concurrent List. Article 254 takes care of this repugnancy.
Repugnan

## Text

_Characters 0–39,540 of 100,859. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39540 for what follows._

I
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
v.
ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH
INSTITUTE AND ORS.
MARCH 24, 1995
(P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India, 1950 : Emry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III
Schedule VII-Subjects covered by Entry 66-Always remained within the
pu1View of Parliament even before and after Forty Second Amendment-Entry C
25 List Ill-State legislation in conflict with Central legislation including subordinate legislation-Held: To the extent it is in conflict it is void and inoperative.
Article 254-Subjects covered by List III-Repugnancy between State
and Central legislation-State legislation would be inoperative unless saved D
by Article 254(2)-Pre-Constitutional law of Provincial Legislature--PostConstitutional law of Parliament-Repugnancy between-Held: Law made by
the Provincial Legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of
repugnancy.
Education : All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987:
Technical Education-Subject covered by the statut&-Within the scope
of Entry 66 of List l and Entry 25 of List III.
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 : Technical
Educatio~rovisions of the Act in conflict with Central Act-To the extent
of inconsistency Act voi~Standards and requirement laid down by
Stat&-Cannot be higher than those laid down by the Central Act-Applicants
not qualified according to such higher standards-State cannot deny situations/seats to such applicants-State also cannot derecognise or disaffiliate
an institution on this ground.
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 : Rule
E
F
G
'
2(b )-Not applicable to technical Colleges-However, mle can be amended
and made applicable to technical Colleges.
Madras University Act, 1923: Pre-Constitutional law-Repugnant to the H
1075
•
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A Central Act-University Act stands impliedly repealed to the extent of repugB
nancy-Conditions presoibed by University for grant of affiliation-Will have
+ -·
to be in conj onnity with the nomis and guidelines presoibed under Central
Act.
Words & Phrases: "Coordination''-Meaning and scope of
"College''-Meaning of
The State Government had permitted private management to start
new Engineering Colleges under the Self-financing scheme without any
financial commitment to the Government, but subject to the fulfillment of
C certain conditions. The first respondent - Trust was granted permission
by the Government to start a private Engineering College. The Trust was
granted provisional affiliation by the University subject to the fulfilment
of certain conditions.
D
In the meanwhile, the State Government appointed a High Power
Committee to inspect the College which stated that the Trust had not
fulfilled certain conditions imposed by the State Government. Thereupon,
the State Government issued a show cause notice to the Trust as to why
permission granted by it should not be withdrawn. The University also
accepted the report of the High Power Committee and passed a resolution
E cancelling the provisional affiliation.
F
The Trust filed a writ petition before the High Court for prohibiting
the Government from taking further action in pursuance of the Show
Cause notice and also for quashing the resolution passed by the University which was allowed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the
appellants preferred the present appeals and SLPs.
_ ---(
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution did not debar the State
Legislature from prescribing higher standards; that the University had the
G power to affiliate or disaffiliate the College; and that if the College were to
close down for want of adequate infrastructure the Government might have
to bear the burden in taking over the College.
Dismissing the appeals and the SLPs, this Court
H
HELD: 1.1. Repugnancy may arise between a legislation made by
-I
}
STATE OFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT.
1077
Parliament and a legislation enacted by the State legislature on a subject A
falling in the Concurrent List. Article 254 takes care of this repugnancy.
Repugnancy may also arise between a pre-Constitutional law made by the
then Provincial Legislature which continues to be in force by virtue of
Article 372 and a post-Constitutional law made by Parliament in which
case, the law made by the Provincial Legislature shall stand impliedly
repealed to the extent of repugnancy to the law made by Parliament.
B
(1089-C, 1088-F]
1.2. If there is a conflict between the Central legislation and the State
legislation, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the
main part of clause (2) of Article 254, it would be inoperative being
repugnant to the Central legislation. (1114-C]
1.3. Repugnancy may also arise between a legislation made by Parliament under the Union List and a legislation made by the State Legislature under the Concurrent List in which case the law made by Parliament
c
will prevail over the law made by the State legislation. (1088-D]
D
1.4. Whether a State legislation made under the Concurrent List is
repugnant to the Central Legislation made under the Union List or the
Concurrent List, will have to be determined by an examination of the
provisions of the two laws. (1114-D]
2.1. The primary object of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act) is to provide for the establishment of an All
India Council for Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan
and coordinate the development of technical education system throughout
the country and to promote the qualitative improvement of such· education
E
and to regulate and properly maintain the norms and standards in the F
technical education system which is a subject within the exclusive legislative
field of the Central Government as is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List
in the Seventh Schedule. All the other provisions of the Act have been made
in furtherance of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have been
enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the provisions of the State G
Legislation which impinge upon the provision of the Central Act are void,
and, therefore, unenforceable. (1100-B, 1101-A]
2.2. Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
has remained unchanged since its inception. After the Constitution (FortySecond Amendment) Act, 1976 the Constitutional position on that score H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A has not undergone any change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was
taken out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However,
feven the new Entry 25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among
others, of Entry 66 of List I. Thus the legislation with regard to co-ordina·
tion and determination of standards in Institutions for higher education
B or research and Scientific and Technical Institutions has always been the
preserve of the Parliament. [1087-E]
2.3. The expression "coor•lination" used in Entry 66 of the Union List
does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to
forge a uniform pattern for a
concerted action according to a certain
C design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not
only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the
occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to
do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make "coordination" either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given
D its full effect according to its plain and express intention. [1113-G-H]
2.4. On the subjects covered by the Central Act, the State could not
make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to Forty- Second Amendment
nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after the Forty-Second
E Amendment. If there was any such existing law immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of
the Constitution, on the enactment of the Central Act, the provisions of
the said law, if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand
impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy. [1095-F]
F
)
""'
3.1. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu ·Private Colleges (Regulation)
Act, 1976 (State Act) show that, if it is made applicable to technical ---<
~
institutions, it will overlap and will be in conflict with the provisions of the
Central Act in various areas. [1100-D]
-.r3.2. The expression "means and includes" used in Rule 2(b) of the
G Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Rules, 1976 confines only to
those species of the genus which are specifically enumerated in the said
rule, and hence the State Act as it stands today, is not made applicable by
the said Rules to the Technical Colleges including the Engineering Colieges. It cannot, however, be denied that in view of the wide application
H of the State Act by virtue of Section 1(3) and the wide definition of "private
STATE OFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT.
1079
college" contained in Section 2(8) of the State Act, it is capable of being A
made applicable any time to the Institutions imparting Technical education by amending the Rules. [1100-A-C]
P. Kasilingam & Ors. v. P.S.G. College of Tech110/ogy, [1995] 2 SCR
1061, referred to.
B
4.1. The Madras University Act, 1923 (University Act) is a
preconstitutional law which has been continued under Article 372 of the
Constitution. A comparison of the Central Act and the University Act
shows that as far as institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the C
Council and the University in respect of matters other than affiliation of
technical colleges like Engineering Colleges and the conditions for grant
and continuation of such affiliation by the University. So far as the rest of
the matters are concerned in the case of the Institutions imparting technical education, it is not the University Act or the University but it is the
Central Act and the Council entered under it which will have the jurisdicD
ti on. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the
provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical collages like the Engineering Colleges.
(1103-D-H, 1104-A)
4.2. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of E
Technical colleges like the Engineering Colleges and the conditions of
grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however,
remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the university
for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with
the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters F
·;--
entrusted to it under Section 10 of the Central Act. (1104-C]
5.1. So far as technical institutions are concerned, the norms and
standards and the requirements for their recognition and affiliation
respectively the State Government and the University may lay down,
cannot be higher than or be in conflict and inconsistent with those laid G
down by the Council under the Central Act. Such norms, standards and
requirements etc. will have to be uniform throughout the country. Uniformity for the purposes of coordinated and integrated development of technical education in the country necessarily implies a set of minimum
standards the fulfilment of which should entitle an institution and its H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A alumni, titles, degrees and certificates to recognition anywhere in the
country. It is true that the higher than the minimum standard implies
compliance with the minimum standard. The argument that there is no
repugnancy or inconsistency between the minimum and the higher than
minimum standard will have to be rejected. [1104-G-H, 1105-A, F]
B
Tika Ramji v. State of UP, [1956] SCR 393, referred to.
G.P. Steward v. B.K Roy Chowdhury, AIR (1939) Cal. 629, approved.
5.f. When there are more
applicants than the available situaC tions/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher
standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the
Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State authority
does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Unicin List or make a
law which is repugnant to the Central Law. [1114-E]
D
5.3. However, when the situations/seats are available and the State
authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant
is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications as the case
may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications
laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the
E State authorities derecognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying
the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the
norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State
authorities act illegally. [1114-G-H]
5.4. There is no material on record to show that the standards or
F requirements prescribed by the Council are such that the institutions
complying with these are unable to conduct the relevant courses. If,
however, the State Government thinks that the standards prescribed by
the Council are low and will not enable an institution to conduct the
course, the State Government can certainly take up the matter with the
G Council and get the standards raised by it. However, pending the modifications, if any, in the requirements laid down by the Council, the State
Government cannot reject the permission of any technical institution or
derecognise the existing institution because it has not satisfied the standards and requirements laid down by it. (1113-C-E]
H
6.1. When the power to recognise or derecognise an institution is
I
I
STATEOFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL.AND RES. INSTT.
1081
given to a body created under the Central Act, it alone rnn exercise the A
power and on terms and conditions laid down in the Central Act. It will
not be open for the body created under the State Act to exercise such power
much less on terms and conditions which are inconsistent with ore repugnant to those which are laid down under the Central Act. (1106-E]
T7te Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar B
& Ors., (1963) Supp. SCR 112;State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lavu
Narend1'Plitath & Ors. etc., (1971) 3 SCR 699;Dr. Ambesh Kumar etc. v.
Principal, LLRM College, Meernt & Ors. etc., (1987) 1 SCR 661 and Usmania
University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (1987] 3
SCR 949, referred to.
C
R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1964) 6 SCR 368,
followed.
6.2. The provisions of the Central Act on the one hand and of the
State Act and the University Act on the other, being inconsistent and, D
therefore, repugnant with each other, the Central Act will prevail and the
derecognition by the State Government or the disaffiliation by the University on grounds which are inconsistent with those enumerated in the
Central Act will be inoperative. (1115-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1634-35 E
of 1990 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.89 of the Madras High
Court in W.A. No. 793-94 of 1989.
M.K. Banerjee, Attorney General, C. Sitaramiah~ A.K. Ganguli, P.P. F
Rao,
M.N. Krishnamani, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K. Parasaran, S.Subramaniam, G. Vishwanatha Iyer, K.R. Nagaraja, Gaurav Banerjee, A
Mariarputham, W.A. Qadri, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Sudarsh Menon, K.V.
Mohan, B.K. Prasad, Naveen, Prakash, S. Wasim Qadri~ Dr. A Francis
Julian, V. Balachandran, N. Sudhakaran, W.C. Chopra, AV. Rangam, G
S.R. Setia, R.P. Srivastava, V.K. Verma, Ms. Sushma Suri and K.R. Chaudhary for the appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SAWANT, J. The short question involved in these matters is whether H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
A after the coming mto force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act') the State
Government has power to
grant and withdraw permission to start a
technical institution as defined in the Central Act. In the present case, the
technical institutions with which we are concerned ar.e the respondent
B Engineering Colleges which are being run in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. To understand the issue, we will refer to the facts in CA. Nos.
1634-35/1990. The State Government under G.O.M. No. 429 dated 17th
April, 1984 issued by the Education, Science and Technology Department
!tad permitted private managements to start new Engineering Colleges
C under the self-financing scheme without any financial commitment to the
Government, but subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first
respondent, viz., Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute [for short, the
Trust'] applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for permission to start
a new self-financing private Engineering College in terms of the said policy.
D The Government granted the permission to the Trust to start a private
Engineering College under the name and style of Adhiyaman College of
Engineering at Hasur in Dharmapuri district beginning with the academic
year 1987-88 by its order of 9th June, 1987. The permission was to offer
three degree courses with the intake of 180 students per year, i.e., sixty
students in each course in the subjects of [a] Mechanical Engineering, [b]
E Electronics and Communication Engineering and [c] Computer Science
_ and Engineering. One of the conditions imposed by the Government was
that the Trust could admit candidates of its choice upto 50 per cent of the
approved intake under the management quota, and the remainiag 50 per
cent of the seats would be allotted by the Director of Technical Education
p
from among the candidates of the approved list prepared for admission to
Government and Government-aided Engineering Colleges. The Government had also stipulated that if any of the conditions imposed by them was
not fulfilled, the permission granted to start the College would be
withdrawn and the Government will have the right to take over the College
with all its movable and immovable properties including endowment and
G cash balance without paying compensation. Pursuant to this permission, the
Trust applied to the University on 18th June, 1987 for affiliation of the
College. After inspection of the College, the Inspecting Commission of the
University submitted its report on 5th November, 1987 and the University
on 21st November, 1987 granted temporary affiliation to the College for
H the academic year 1987-88 subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions.
\
1-
I
STATE OFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT. (SAWANT,J.)
1083
The University also made it clear to the Trust that the Trust should make A
an application for affiliation for the second year B.E. degree course for the
academic year 1988-89 and that no admission should be made to the degree
course until the permission was granted by the University.
3. The College started functioning from July 1987. On 17th September, 1988, the University extended the affiliation for first year of B.E. B
degree course for the academic year 1988-89 subject to the implementation
of the recommendations of the Inspecting Commission made in its report
of 5th November, 1987 and subject to the conditions of affiliation already
intimated while granting the initial temporary affiliation. On 24th November, 1988, the Trust applied for affiliation for third year B.E. degree course C
for the academic year 1989-90 and continuation of affiliation .for first year
and second year B.E. degree courses. In March 1989, the Committee
appointed by the Director of Technical Education, inspected the College
and submitted its report which was forwarded to the Trust with a direction
to take necessary steps to create requisite infrastructural facilities. The D
Trust sent a reply to the Director informing him of the progress made by
it with regard to the provision of necessary infrastructural facilities.
4. In the meanwhile, on 27th March, 1989, the State Government
appointed a High Power Committee to visit the self-financing Engineering
Colleges and make an assessment of their functioning. In its report, the E
High Power Committee stated that the Trust had not fulfilled the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of the grant of permission
and also the conditions imposed by the University while granting affiliation.
On receipt of this report, the Director of Technical Education issued a
show cause notice on 16th July, 1989 and asked for an explanation within F
fifteen days as to why the permission granted by the Government to start
the College should not be withdrawn.
In the meanwhile, in May 1989, the University appointed a threemember Inspection Commission to inspect the functioning of the College
for the purposes of considering the question of continuance of the affiliaG
tion of the College for the academic year 1989-90. Even before the receipt
of the report of the Inspection Commission, the Syndicate of the University
accepted the report of the High Power Committee appointed by the
Government and resolved to reject the request for provisional affiliation
for the academic year 1989-90 and also to issue a show cause notice to the H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
A Trust as to why the affiliation granted to it for the academic years, 1987-88
_,
and 1988-89 should not be cancelled. Pursuant to this resolution, the
University on 25th July, 1989, issued a notice to the Trust to show cause
as to why the Statute 44[A) of Chapter XXVI of Vol.I of the Madras
University Calendar should not be invoked in respect of the provisional
B affiliation already granted for the first year for the academic year 1987-88
and for the academic year 1988-89. On 26th July, 1989, the University sent
a communication to the Trust informing that the Syndicate had accepted
the report of the High Power Committee appointed by the Government
and it resolved to reject the request of the Trust for provisional affiliation
for 1989-90 for the first year and also the request for provisional affiliation
C for second and third year courses for 1989-90. The communication also
informed the Trust that . it should make alternative arrangement to distribute the students already admitted to the academic year 1987-88 and
1988-89 among other institutions with adequate facilities.
D
The Trust, therefore, filed a Writ petition being W.P. No. 10222
before the High Court for prohibiting the Director of Technical Education
from taking further proceedings in pursuance of his show cause notiee
dated 16th July, 1989. The Trust also filed another writ petition being W.P.
No. 10233 of 1989 for quashing the resolution passed by the Syndicate of
-the University and for directing the University to grant provisional affilia-
• E tion to its College. The Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Human
Resources Development (Central) and All India Council for Technical
Education were also impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as respondents. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge
appointed a Committee to inspect the College and make a report with
p regard to its deficiencies which are pointed out by the Government and
the University. The Court Committee submitted a report that the Trust had
not even provided the requisite infrastructural facilities for conducting
different courses. By a common judgment, the leaned Single Judge allowed
W.P. No. 10222/1989 which was against the State Government and dismissed W.P. No. 10223/1989 which was directed against the University. The
G learned Single Judge held that after the passing of the Central Act, the
State Government had no power to cancel the permission granted to the
Trust to start the College and it could not rely for the purpose on a report
of the High Power Committee appointed by it since the appointment of
such a committee was itself illegal and unconstitutional. According to the
H learned Judge, the only course open to the State Government was to refer
\
{-
y
!
-~-
Sf ATE OFT.N. '" ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT. (SA WANT, J.)
the matter to the All India Council of Technical Education [for short A
'Council'). According to him, under the Central Act, the duty was imposed
on the Council for recognising or derecognising any technical institution in
the country and it was not open to the State Government or the university
to give approval or disapproval to any technical institution. According to
the learned Judge, further, if after the
coming into operation of the
Central Act, each State Government and University was allowed to recognise or derecognise the technical institutions, each of them would follow
different yardsticks which will be against the object of the Central Act.
However, he held that the University could take action under Statute 44[A)
in Chapter XXVI of Vol. I of the Calendar of the University on the ground
that one of the conditions imposed by it for grant of affiliation, viz, that
the Trust should obtain concurrence of the Council for the College was not
fulfilled and consequently he held that the resolution passed by the Univer-
.
I
sity Syndicate was valid.
'
B
c
Aggrieved by this decision, the Trust, the State Government as well D
as the University preferred writ appeals. It appears that during the appellate stage, even the students were allowed to intervene in the proceedings.
The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal of the Trust and quashed the
resolution of the University Syndicate passed on 21st July, 1989 and dismissed the writ appeals of the State Government and the University. The
Division Bench not only confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge
that the State Government had no jurisdiction to derecognise the College, ·
but it also held that even the University could not have acted on the report
of the High Power Committee appointed by the State Government and
could not have refused extension of affiliation without giving r~asons for
the same which were admittedly not discussed in its impugned communication. The Division Bench further held that condition No. 18 which
E
F
was mentioned in the University's letter dated 21st November, 1987 while
granting initial temporary affiliation was beyond the jurisdiction of the
University since after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the
concurrence of the then council [the predecessor of the present Council]
which was a non- statutory body and which ceased to exist in March, 1988 G
was neither necessary nor could it have been obtained.
5. It may thus be seen that although on the facts in the present case,
what is questioned is the power of the State Government and the University
respectively to derecognise and disaffiliate the Engineering College, what H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A is involved is the larger issue as stated at the outset, viz., the contlict
between the Central Act on the one hand and the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short 'the State Act') and Rules made
thereunder, viz., the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976
and the Madras University Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as the
B 'University Act') the and the statutes and ordinances made thereunder on
the other. We have, therefore, in effect to address ourselves to this larger
issue.
6. We may begin by examining the provisions of the Constitution
delineating respective spheres of the Central and the State legislatures .
. C Entry 66 of the List I, i.e., the Union List of Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution reads as follows:
D
E
"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions
for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
This Entry has remained unchanged since the inception of the Constitution. Before the Constitution [Forty Second Amendment] Act, 1976
which came into force w.e.f. 3rd January, 1977, Entry 11 in List II, i.e., the
State List was as follows:
"Education including Universities subject to the provis10ns of
Entries 63, 64 , 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List HI".
Entry 63 of List I relates to the Benares Hindu University, the
Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University estabF lished in pursuance of Article 371-E, i.e. Central University in Andhra
Pradesh, and other institutions declared by Parliament by law to be an
· institution of national importance. Entry 64 of the said List refers to
institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by the Parliament by law to
be institutions of national importance and Entry 65 relates to the Union
G agencies and institutions for [a] professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of police officers; or [b] the promotion of special
studies or research; or [c] scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime.
, H
Entry 25 of List III, i.e., the Concurrent List prior to the said
-(
I
/
-~
STATEOFT.N. v. ADHIYA~AN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT. (SAWAl\T.J.J
1087
Constitutional Amendment read as follows:
"Vocational and technical Training of Labour."
After the Amendment it reads as follows :
"Education, including technical education, medical education and
universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66
of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."
The Constitutional provisions dealing with the scope of the powers
of the Union and the State legislatures on the subject in question may be
summarised as follows:
The subject "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions" has always remained the special preserve of the Parliament. This was
A
B
c
so even before the Forty-Second Amendment, since Entry 11 of List II even D
then was subject, among other, to Entry 66 of List I. After the said
AmenC.ment, the Constitutional position on that score has not undergone
any change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken out from List
II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List Ill. However, even the new Entry
25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry 66
of List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is it contended before us,
that the legislation with regard to coordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions has always been the preserve of the Parliament. What
was contended before us on behalf of the State was that Entry 66 enables
the Parliament to lay down the minimum standards but does not deprive
the State Legislature from laying down standards above the said minimum
standards. We will deal with this argument at its proper place.
E
F
We may now •efer to the provisions of Articles 246, 248 and 254 in
Part II of Chapter I which relates to the distribution of the legislative G
powers between the Parliament and the State Legislatures. It is not necessary to enter into a detailed discussion of these Articles since they have
been the subject matter of various decisions of this Court. We may only
summarise the effect of these Articles as has emerged through the judicial
decisions, so far as it is relevant for our present discussion. While Article H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
, A
246 states the obvious, viz. that Parliament has exclusive power lo mak<.!
laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I and has also
y
the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in
List III, the State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List II subject, of course, to the
B Parliament's power to make laws on matters enumerated in List I and List
III. Parliament has also power to make laws on matters enumerated in List
II for any part of the territory of India not included in a State. Article 248
vests the Parliament with the exclusive power to make any law not
enumerated in the Concurrent List or the State List including the power
of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in those Lists. This is a
C residuary power of legislation conferred on the Parliament and is specifically covered by Entry 97 of list I. In case of repugnancy in the legislations
made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures which arises in the case
of Legislations on a subject in List III, the law made by the Parliament
whether passed before or after the law passed by the State Legislature shall
D prevail and to that extent, the law made by the Legislature of a State will
be void. Where, however, the law made by the legislature of a State is
repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to that matter, the law made by the Legislature
of the State shall, if it has received the assent of the President, prevail in
E that State. However, this does not prevent the Parliament enacting at any
time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to,
amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the
State. The repugnancy may also arise between a pre-Constitutional law
made by the then Provincial Legislature which continues to be in force by
F virtue of Article 372 and the post-Constitutional law of Parliament in which
case, the law made by the Provincial Legislature shall stan~ impliedly
-----<_
\,
repealed to the extent of repugnancy to the law made by the Parliament.
According to some jurists, the repugnancy may also arise between
a pre-Constitutional law made by the then Provincial Legislature which
G continues to be inforce by virtue of Article 372 and the post-Constitutional
law of the Parliament in which case by virtue of the first part of Article 254
[1], the law made by the Parliament shall prevail, notwithstanding that the
Provincial Legislature was competent to make the law prior to the commencement of the Constitution. This is the consequence of the relevant
H provision of Article 254 [1] which reads as follows:
I
•·
STATEOFT.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSTT. (SAWANT,J.J
1089
"254 (1). Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and the A
laws made by the Legislatures of States. - (lJ If any provision of a
law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision
of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to
enact... the law made. by Parliament, whether passed before or after
the law made by the Legislature of such State .... shall prevail and B
the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of
the repugnancy, be void."
According to this view, it is to take care of this repugnancy that the
aforesaid provision in the first part of Article 254(1) is made. The repugnancy arising out of the two laws made on matters in the Concurrent List C
is referred to in the other part of Article 254 (1] and if the framers of the
Constitution wanted to provide only for the repugnancy arising between
the two laws made on the subjects in the Concurrent List, the aforesaid
provision of Article 254 (1] was unnecessary. However, in view of the
repugnancy resulting in implied repeal of the pre- Constitutional provincial D
law by the post-Constitutional parliamentary law, this controversy need not
detain us here.
7. In the light of the aforesaid Constitutional provisions, we may now
examine the provisions of the Central Act and the two State enactments
and the subordinate legislation made thereunder to find out whether there E
is encroachment by the said law on Entry 66 of List I or whether there is
repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Acts.
The Preamble of the Central Act states that it has been enacted to
provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to [1) proper planning and coordinated development of the F
technical education system throughout the country [ii] promotion of
qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth, [iii] regulation and proper maintenance of nonns and standards
in the technical education system and [iv] for matters c;onnected therewith
(emphasis supplied). Section 2[g], 2[h] and 2[i] of the Central Act define G
'technical education', 'technical institution' and 'University' respectively as
follows:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 2 S.C.R.
[g) "t~chnical education" means programmes of education, research
and training in engineering, technology, architecture, town· planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such
other programme or areas as the Central Government may in
consultation with the Coont:i4, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare;
[h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a univer·
j
sity which offers courses or programmes of technical education,
and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government
may, in consultation with the Council by notification in the official
Gazette, declare as technical institutions;
[i) "University" means a university defined under clause (t) of
section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and
includes an institution deemed to be a University under section 3
of that Act."
Section 3 (1) gives power to the Central Government to establish the
Council. Since the composition of the Council is important to deal with
one of the aspects of an argument, we may cite the relevant provisions of
sub-section [4) of Section 3 which refers to the said composi.ti.on. Jt reads
as under:
"[4) The Council shall consist of the following membecs, namely:-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
m
two members of parliament of who, one shall be elected by the
House of the People and one by the Council of States.
. ---<,
[k] eight members to be appointed by the Central Government by
rotation in the alphabetical order to represent the State and the
- -f"
Union territories:
Provided that an appointment under this clause shall be made on
the recommendation of the Government of the State, or as the
case may be, the union territory concerned;
[l) four members to be appointed by the Central Government to
represent the organisations in the field of industry and commerce;
I
j
' 'r
ST A TE OF T.N. v. ADHIYAMAN EDNL. AND RES. INSIT. (SAW ANT. J.) 1091
[m] seven members to be appointed by the Central Government A
to represent:-
[i) .............................................................. .
[ii] the Association of Indian Universities;"
Suffice it to say that the Council, besides having on it the representatives of the various ministries, of higher educational institutions,
professional bodies in the field of technical and management education
and organisations in the field of industry and commerce also has the
representatives of the State in the form of the Members of parliament and
the Members to be appointed by the Central Government to represent the
States and the Union Territories and also of the State Universities. Section
7 further empowers the Council to associate with itself any person whose
aaistance or advice it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of
the Act.
Chapter III of the Act enumerates the powers and functions of the
Council.