Non-Justiciability of Legislative Repeal and Absence of Contractual Rights in Enabling Statutes

Introduction

The present case, RITHS Trust and 2 Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and 2 Ors. (WP(C) No. 364 of 2023), came before the Meghalaya High Court on a petition challenging the repeal of the Rajitlal University Act, 2011 by the Rajitlal University (Repealing) Act, 2023. The petitioners—RITHS Trust (the sponsor), its chairman Dr. P.L. Rajitlal, and Rajitlal University—sought to restrain the State of Meghalaya and other respondents from giving effect to the repealing legislation. They contended that the repeal was ultra vires the Constitution and asked for a writ of mandamus to set aside the repeal and keep the enabling law alive.

The key issue was whether the Court could compel the State legislature to maintain or enact a statute, and whether petitioners had acquired any enforceable contractual or proprietary right under the 2011 Act once the conditions for establishing the university remained unfulfilled.

Summary of the Judgment

By majority, the Meghalaya High Court dismissed the writ petition as frivolous, holding:

• The legislature has exclusive authority under Article 246 to enact and repeal laws on Concurrent List matters (Entry 25: “Universities”).
• There was no completed contract or vested right in the petitioners: the university would come into existence only upon satisfaction of specified conditions, which were never met.
• The Court has no power to issue mandamus to compel legislation or to restrain repeal; judicial review is confined to determinations of ultra vires or constitutional invalidity, neither of which was established.
• The petition was an abuse of process; it was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Analysis

Precedents and Constitutional Provisions Cited

• Article 246, Constitution of India: Grants State legislatures power over Concurrent List entries, including universities and education.
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Recognized by Indian constitutional jurisprudence as restricting judicial intrusion into legislative functions.
• General principles on ultra vires legislation and judicial review, as laid down in landmark cases such as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (though not cited by name, the ratio underpins the Court’s reasoning).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in the following steps:

1. Nature of the 2011 Act
   The Rajitlal University Act, 2011 was an enabling statute providing a mechanism by which a sponsor could apply, satisfy specified conditions (proposal, endowment fund in line with UGC guidelines), and then be formally notified as a university. Absent completion of these conditions, the university had no legal existence.
2. No Contractual or Proprietary Right
   Legislation did not create a contractual obligation or vested right in the petitioners. There was no “founding” under Section 3(1); the sponsor’s right was contingent and future. Without a completed endowment fund and government satisfaction, petitioners held nothing more than a prospective legislative privilege.
3. Legislative Prerogative
   Under Article 246, the State legislature alone decides on enactment and repeal of laws. The judiciary’s role is limited to assessing constitutional validity, not guiding or controlling legislative policy. To command the legislature to maintain a statute or to restrain repeal would offend the separation of powers.
4. Ultra Vires and Fraud on the Legislature
   Petitioners alleged the repeal might be a “fraud” to lure students into fake degrees. The Court found the object and reasons for repeal reasonable: absence of any sponsor action for over three years justified legislative withdrawal. No evidence suggested a constitutional violation or extraneous motive rendering the repeal void.

Potential Impact

This decision reinforces the non-justiciability of legislative repeal and clarifies that:

• No litigant may claim a vested private right from an enabling statute that merely provides a procedural route to future privileges.
• Courts will not entertain mandamus applications against legislatures to maintain or enact laws.
• Future challenges to repeals of pending or dormant legislative schemes must establish a constitutional infirmity, not mere displeasure with policy or process delays.
• State governments retain full discretion to revoke ineffective or unutilized enabling statutes without fear of judicial injunction absent a clear constitutional breach.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Enabling Statute: A law that sets out the framework or conditions for a future act (e.g., a sponsor applying to establish a university), but does not itself create the right or institution.
• Mandamus: A mandatory court order directing a public official or body to perform a statutory duty. Not available to compel a legislature to pass or retain a law.
• Ultra Vires: Latin for “beyond the powers,” used when a legislature or authority acts outside its constitutional or statutory authority.
• Separation of Powers: Constitutional principle dividing governmental functions among legislative, executive, and judicial branches; each must respect the domain of the others.

Conclusion

The Meghalaya High Court’s judgment in RITHS Trust v. State of Meghalaya crystallizes the principle that enabling statutes confer no enforceable vested rights until their conditions are met, and that legislatures possess exclusive authority to enact and repeal laws on concurrent subjects. By refusing to issue mandamus or curb the repeal, the Court preserved the doctrine of separation of powers and clarified judicial review’s limited scope. This precedent will guide future disputes over dormant legislative schemes and underscores that policy dissatisfaction cannot be cured through writ petitions challenging valid legislative action.