- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Osmania University Teachers' Association v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another
Supreme Court of India: Constitutional Validity of the A.P. Commissionerate Act, 1986
Factual and Procedural Background
The Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (“Commissionerate Act”) following the recommendations of a high-power committee that found serious deficiencies in the State’s higher-education framework. The Act created a Commissionerate vested with sweeping authority over universities and colleges, including control over academic planning, finance, inspections, curricula, examinations, and staffing.
The Act was challenged as being beyond the State Legislature’s competence. The High Court upheld the statute under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) but granted a certificate of fitness for an appeal under Article 133(1). The present appeal before the Supreme Court questions the Act’s constitutional validity.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Commissionerate Act, in pith and substance, relates to “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education” under Entry 66 of List I (Union List), thereby falling within Parliament’s exclusive legislative domain.
- If not, whether it is a valid exercise of concurrent legislative power over “education, including universities” under Entry 25 of List III.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The Act is substantially a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (“UGC Act”), which the Supreme Court has already classified under Entry 66 of List I. Consequently, the State Legislature lacks competence to enact it.
State’s Arguments
- The impugned Act deals with the administration of higher education within the State and thus falls under Entry 25 of List III. The statute does not encroach upon the exclusive Union field.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1976) 1 SCC 466 | Special entries in List I override general entries in List II/III; meaning of “notwithstanding” and “subject to”. | Used to stress that State legislation is void if it occupies a field exclusively assigned to Parliament. |
| Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath, AIR 1963 SC 703 | Items 63–66 of List I carve out parts of education from State competence; State entries are “subject to” Union entries. | Cited to underline that matters under Entry 66 lie only with Parliament. |
| Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459 | Interpretation of “subject to” as a limitation on State powers where Union competence exists. | Reinforced the restriction on State legislation in overlapping fields. |
| D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 261 | Reaffirmed the primacy of Entry 66 over State educational measures. | Relied on as supporting precedent for Union supremacy in educational standards. |
| R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823 | State schemes permissible unless they “wipe out or appreciably abridge” the Union field. | Quoted to show that the Commissionerate Act does, in fact, devastate the Union field. |
| State of A.P. v. Lavu Narendranath (1971) 1 SCC 607 | Admission norms by States permissible if they do not impair Entry 66. | Contrasted with the impugned Act, which confers far more intrusive powers. |
| Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM College, 1986 Supp SCC 543 | Example of State regulation co-existing with Union standards | Used for comparative analysis showing limits of State power. |
| Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra (1984) 2 SCC 302 | Held that the UGC Act is legislation under Entry 66 of List I. | Central to the finding that a parallel State statute is constitutionally impermissible. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
- The Court compared the Commissionerate Act clause-by-clause with the UGC Act and found them “by and large in the same terms,” both directed at coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education.
- Entry 25 of List III is expressly “subject to” Entry 66 of List I. Therefore, any State legislation that ventures into coordination and standard-setting is ultra vires.
- The impugned Act grants the Commissionerate powers over academic planning, curricula, examinations, funding, staffing, and inspection—powers that lie squarely within the Union’s exclusive field.
- Applying the principle from Kerala State Electricity Board, the specific Union entry prevails over the general concurrent entry, making State action invalid.
- Prem Chand Jain definitively classifies the UGC Act under Entry 66. Because the Commissionerate Act is functionally equivalent, it too falls within Entry 66 and is therefore beyond State competence.
Holding and Implications
The appeals are allowed; the Commissionerate Act is declared void and inoperative, and the State is directed not to enforce its provisions.
Immediate Consequence: The State Commissionerate cannot function, and control over coordination and standards in higher education remains exclusively with the University Grants Commission under the UGC Act.
Broader Implication: The decision reaffirms the constitutional distribution of legislative power, signalling that States may regulate education only within limits that do not encroach on the Union’s exclusive role in maintaining national standards.
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.— This appeal on a certificate raises a short but an important question as to the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act 26 of 1986)(called shortly “the Commissionerate Act”). The question is whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I or Entry 25 List III — Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld its validity by holding that the Act falls under the latter entry, but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.
2. The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee constituted by the State Government to study the higher education system in the State of Andhra Pradesh with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and management. The Committee in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter alia, that there is no proper coordination and academic planning among the various bodies like Universities, Directorate of Higher Education and University Grants Commission etc. There is no policy perspective in the development of higher education system. The Committee said that in order to streamline the general working and oversee the development of higher education in the State, there is need to constitute a Commission to advise the Government in that matter.
3. The Government appears to have accepted the said report of the Committee. That is obvious from the Preamble to the Commissionerate Act. It states that “Act is to provide for the constitution of a Commissionerate to advise the Government in matters relating to Higher Education in the State and to oversee its development with perspective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto”.
4. Section 2(e) defines “Higher Education” to mean intermediate education and education leading to a degree or postgraduate degree including professional and technical education.
5. Section 2(c) defines “Commissionerate” to mean the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Thereunder, the Commissionerate has been constituted as a corporate body. The composition of the Commissionerate is provided under Section 4. The Commissionerate shall consist of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and not more than 10 members [Section 4(1)]. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall be appointed by the Government [Section 4(2)]. Of the ten members of the Commission, three are Secretaries to the Government: Education Secretary, Labour Secretary and Finance and Planning Secretary. Four of them shall be representing Professors and Vice-Chancellors of any of the Universities in the State. One shall represent industry and commerce, and another shall represent engineering or legal or medical education. The last one shall be a distinguished educationist. All these persons are to be appointed only by the Government. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be wholetime and salaried persons and their terms and conditions are provided under Section 5(1).
6. Section 9 gives overriding effect and power to the Commissionerate over all other authorities and bodies connected with the Higher Education in the State. Section 9(1) provides:
“With effect on and from the constitution of the Commissionerate under Section 3 and notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971, and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, the Director of Higher Education, the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education and the Secretary to the Board of Technical Education shall function under the administrative control of the Commissionerate.”
7. Section 9(2) provides power to the Government to appoint a Secretary to the Commissionerate. Rest of the officers and employees are to be appointed from time to time by the Commissionerate but with the previous approval of the Government.
8. The central power of the Commissionerate has been located in Section 11. We may give the gist of it here. The Commissionerate shall
(i) evolve a perspective plan for the development of Higher Education in the State;
(ii) monitor and evaluate the academic programmes in higher education and enforce accountability in the system;
(iii) establish and develop resources centre for curriculum materials and continuing education of teachers;
(iv) coordinate the academic activities of various institutions of higher education in the State;
(v) undertake examination reforms;
(vi) establish linkages between universities, industries and community development organisations;
(vii) transfer teachers appointed in aided posts from one aided private college to another such college subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf and generally encourage mobility of teachers; and
(viii) perform any other functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher education in the State.
9. Section 11(2) provides:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any law relating to Universities in the State, the Board of Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, every University or college including a private college in the State shall obtain the prior approval of the Commissionerate in regard to—
(i) creation of new posts;
(ii) financial management; and
(iii) starting of new higher educational institutions.”
10. Section 13 is another important section. It provides power for inspection for ascertaining the financial needs of a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research. The Commissionerate shall communicate to the University its views in regard to the result of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of the University, recommend to the University the action to be taken as a result of such inspection and the University shall comply with any such direction.
11. Section 16 states that the Commissionerate shall be guided by such directions issued by the Government on questions of policy relating to State purposes or in case of any emergency as may be given to it by the Government. Section 18 confers power to the Government to make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section 19 provides power to the Commissionerate to make regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
12. The sole contention of Dr Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissionerate Act is just a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act (“the UGC Act”) and the State has no legislative power at all to enact it, since it squarely falls under Entry 66 List I. But the contention of Mr Krishnamurthy Iyer learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh is to the contrary. While supporting the judgment of the High Court, he submitted that the enactment in pith and substance falls within Entry 25 of List III and not under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. For proper consideration of the contentions we may set out these two entries:
“Entry 66 List I:
Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
Entry 25 List III:
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.”
13. Till January 3, 1977, education was a State subject under Entry 11 in List II. By the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, Entry 11 was deleted and it was placed in the Concurrent List by enlarging the Entry 25, as set out above.
14. Entry 25 List III relating to education including technical education, medical education and universities has been made subject to the power of Parliament to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read together. Entry 66 gives power to Union to see that a required standard of higher education in the country is maintained. The standard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. Secondly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to coordinate and determine the standards for higher education. That power includes the power to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. It is needless to state that such a coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, is of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field in regard to “education” has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.
15. The Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters included in List I. The State has no power at all in regard to such matters. If the State legislates on the subject falling within List I that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable.
16. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co (1976) 1 SCC 466, (1976) 1 SCR 552 this Court said:
“The power of Parliament to legislate with respect to matters included in List I is supreme notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3)[again leaving out of consideration the provisions of clause (2)]. Now what is the meaning of the words ‘notwithstanding’ in clause (1) and ‘subject to’ in clause (3)? They mean that where an entry is in general terms in List II and part of that entry is in specific terms in List I, the entry in List I takes effect notwithstanding the entry in List II. This is also on the principle that the ‘special’ excludes the ‘general’ and the general entry in List II is subject to the special entry in List I.”
17. We may now refer to some of the decisions dealing with the interaction of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III. In Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath AIR 1963 SC 703, 1963 Supp 1 SCR 112 Shah, J. speaking for the majority view of the Constitution Bench observed:
“Items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in the Parliament. Use of the expression ‘subject to’ in Item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures. In Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1961 SC 459, (1961) 2 SCR 537 this Court in considering the import of the expression ‘subject to’ used in an entry in List II, in relation to an entry in List I observed that to the extent of the restriction imposed by the use of the expression ‘subject to’ in an entry in List II, the power is taken away from the State Legislature. Power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including Universities’ power to legislate on that subject must lie with the Parliament.”
18. This decision turned on the interpretation of Section 4(27) of Gujarat University Act, and it was held that the University has no power to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive medium of instruction in higher education. The principles enunciated in the Krishna Ranganath case AIR 1963 SC 703, 1963 Supp 1 SCR 112 have been reiterated in D.A.V College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 261, 1971 Supp SCR 677.
19. The power of the State to prescribe certain norms for admission to colleges came for consideration before this Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore AIR 1964 SC 1823, (1964) 6 SCR 368 where Subba Rao, J., as he then was, observed:
“… that if the law made by the States by virtue of Entry 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution makes impossible or difficult the exercise of the legislative power of the Parliament under the entry ‘Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions’ reserved to the Union, the State law may be bad. This cannot obviously be decided on speculative and hypothetical reasoning. If the impact of the State law providing for such standards on Entry 66 of List I is so heavy or devastating as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central field, it may be struck down. But that is a question of fact to be ascertained in such case.”
20. The learned Judge, however, upheld the impugned scheme of the State in that case for selection of students to colleges maintained by the State since it was found that that scheme only prescribed criteria for making admissions to colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. It was held that the scheme did not encroach upon the field covered by Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Similar was the view expressed by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh V. Lavu Narendranath (1971) 1 SCC 607, AIR 1971 SC 2560, (1971) 3 SCR 699 and in Ambesh Kumar Dr v. Principal, LLRM College, Meerut 1986 Supp SCC 543, AIR 1987 SC 400.
21. What do we have in the present case? There is no scheme for admission to colleges. There is a corporate body established under the State enactment with powers supreme in regard to all matters pertaining to higher education. To mention a few, the Commissionerate constituted thereunder shall evolve a perspective plan for the development of higher education in the State. It must monitor and evaluate the academic programmes. It must coordinate the academic activities of various institutions and universities. It must oversee the development and streamline the higher education in the entire State. It shall perform all functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher education in the State. It also controls the entire fund meant for the universities including grants given by the Central Government for higher education.
22. Since it was argued that both these enactments are in pari materia, it will be useful to compare the UGC Act with the corresponding provisions of the Commissionerate Act by keeping them side by side:
UGC Act, 1956 The Commissionerate Act 1. Statement of Objects and reasons: The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions”. It is obvious that neither co-ordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Government has some voice in the determination of standards of teaching and examination in Universities, both old and new…… In order to bring a change in the higher education system in the State so as to make the courses of study more relevant to the needs of the modern society and to provide opportunities of earning and learning simultaneously at college level to all the students in the State, a four man committee was appointed in February 1986 by the State Government to study the higher education system in the State with special reference to curricula and courses of studies, Finance and Management in the Higher Education system. 2. It is, therefore, proposed to establish a University Grants Commission as a corporate body which will inquire into the financial needs of Universities and allocate and disburse grants to Universities for any general or specified purpose…. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise the Central Government on problems connected with the co-ordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. The Commission, in consultation with the University concerned, will also have the power to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made of any university established by law in India and to advise the university on any matter which has been the subject of an inquiry or inspection. The Commission shall also advice, whenever such advise is sought, on the establishment of new Universities The Committee in its report submitted to Government observed that there is no proper co-ordination and academic planning among the various bodies like universities; the Directorate of Higher Education and the University Grants Commission etc. and there is no policy perspective in the development of the Higher Education system in the State and in order to streamline the general working of the Higher Education system in the State the Committee suggested to constitute a commission to advise the Government in matters relating to higher education in the State and to oversee its development. The Government have examined the above recommendations and suggestions and decided to constitute a Commissionerate of Higher Education. * * * Section 4. Establishment of the Commission.—(1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint, there shall be established a Commission by the name of the University Grants Commission. Section 3. Constitution of Commissionerate of Higher Education.—(1) The government may, by notification, and with effect on and from such date as may be specified therein constitute a Commissionerate for the purpose of this Act to be called the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education.. (2) The said Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. (2) (a) The Commissionerate shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said corporate name. (b) * * Section 5. Composition of the Commission.—(1) The Commission shall consist of— (i) a Chairman, (ii) a Vice-Chairman, and (iii) ten other members, to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 4. Composition of the Commissionerate.—(1) The Commissionerate shall consist of:— (i) a Chairman (ii) a Vice-Chairman, and (iii) not more than ten members to be appointed by the State Government Section 9. Temporary association of persons with the Commission for particular purposes.— Section 8. Temporary association of persons with the Commissionerate for particular purpose. (Both these sections are similar) Section 12. Functions of the Commission.—It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University Education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research m Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may— (a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities; (b) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act for the maintenance and development of such Universities or for any other general or specified purpose. (c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, such grants to other Universities as it may deem necessary or appropriate for the development of such Universities or for the maintenance, or development, or both, of any specified activities of such Universities or for any other general or specified purpose recommended to any University the measure necessary for the improvement of University Education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendations. Section 11. Powers and Functions of the Commissionerate.—It shall be the general duty of the Commissionerate to: (a) evolve a perspective plan for the development of higher education in the State; (b) administer and release grants-in-aid to Universities and private colleges in the State and report the same to the government. (c) * * * (d) monitor and evaluate the academic programmes in higher education and enforce accountability in the system. (e) * * * (f) * * * (g) co-ordinate the academic activities of various institutions of higher education in the State. * * * (p) perform any other functions necessary to the furtherance and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher education in the State. Section 13. Inspection.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the financial needs of a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research, the Commission may, after consultation with the University, cause an inspection of any department or departments thereof to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and by such person or persons as it may direct. Section 13. Inspection.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the financial needs of a University or its standards of teaching, examination and research, the Commissionerate may, after consultation with the University, cause an inspection of any department or departments thereof to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and by such person or persons as it may direct. (2) The Commission shall communicate to the University the date on which any inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the University shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed. * * * (2) The Commissionerate shall communicate to the University the date on which any inspection under sub-section (1) shall be made and the University shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be pres cribed. (3) The Commissionerate shall communicate to the University its views in regard to the result of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of the University, recommend to the University, the action to be taken as a result of such inspection, and the University shall comply with any such direction. Section 16. Fund of the Commission.—(1) The Commission shall have its own Fund and all sums which may, from time to time, be paid to it by the Central Government and all the receipts of the Commission (including any sum which any State Government or any other authority or person may hand over to the Commission) shall be carried to the Fund and all payments by the Commission shall be made therefrom. (2) All moneys belonging to the Fund shall be deposited in such banks or invested in such manner as may, subject to the approval of the Central Government, be decided by the Commission. (3) The Commission may spend such sums as it thinks fit for performing its functions under this Act, and such sums shall be treated as expenditure payable out of the Fund of the Commission.. Section 12. Fund of the Com-missionerate.—(1) The Commissionerate shall have its own fund consisting of the grants from government voted by the Legislative Assembly of the State towards grants to Universities, and aided Junior and Degree Colleges and grants received from Central Government for higher education. (2) All moneys belonging to the fund shall be deposited in such banks or invested in such manner as may, subject to the approval of the government be decided by the Commissionerate. (3) The Commissionerate may spend such sums as it thinks fit for performing its functions under this Act, and such sums shall be treated as expenditure payable out of the fund of the Commissionerate. Section 18. Annual report..— The Commission shall prepare, once every year, in such form and at such time as may be prescribed, an annual report giving a true and full account of its activities during the previous year; and copies thereof shall be forwarded to the Central Government and the Government shall cause the same to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Section 14. Annual Report..— The Commissionerate shall prepare once in every year, in such form and at such time as may be prescribed an Annual Report giving a true and full account of its activities during the previous year, and copies thereof shall be forwarded to the government and the government shall cause the same to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State. Section 19. Accounts and Audit. Section 15. Accounts and Audit. Section 20. Directions by the Central Government.—(1) In thedischarge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes as may be given to it by the Central Government. Section 16. Directions by the Government.—(1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commissionerate shall be guided by such directions on question of policy relating to State purposes or in case of any emergency as may be given to it by the Government.. (2) If any dispute arises bet ween the Central Government and the Commission as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to national purposes, the decision of the Central Government shall be final. (2) If any dispute arises between the government and the Commissionerate as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy relating to State purposes, or whether an emergency has arisen, the decision of the government thereon shall be final. Section 25. Power to make rules. Section 18. Power to make rules. Section 26. Power to make regulations. Section 19. Power to make regulations.
23. We have extracted only such of the provisions similar to those contained in the UGC Act. That is not all. The Commissionerate Act yet contains sweeping provisions encroaching on the autonomy of the Universities. Under section 11(1)(c) it is for the Commissionerate to decide on the need for, and location of new colleges and courses of study including Engineering Colleges. Section 11(1)(f) provides power to the Commissionerate to establish and develop resources centres for curriculum materials and continuing education of teachers. Section 11(1)(g) confers power on the Commissionerate to coordinate the academic activities of various institutions of higher education in the State. It is also the duty of the Commissionerate to undertake examination reforms and assume accreditation functions [Section 11(1)(h) and (i)]. Section 11(1)(j) states that it is the duty of the Commissionerate to organise entrance test for University admission. Section 11(1)(k) states that it shall administer and grant scholarship and organise work study programmes. Section 11(1)(o) provides power to transfer teachers from one aided private college to another such college, subject to the Rules made by the Government. There is yet a devastating provision on the autonomy of Universities. Section 11(2) states that every University or college including the private college shall obtain the prior approval of the Commissionerate in regard to: (i) creation of new posts; (ii) financial management; and (iii) starting of new higher educational institutions. This “Super Power” has been preserved to the Commissionerate notwithstanding anything contained in any law relating to Universities in the State, the Board of Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
24. It will be seen that the Commissionerate has practically taken over the academic programmes and activities of the Universities. The Universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-entities.
25. It is apparent from this discussion that the Commissionerate Act has been drawn by and large in the same terms as those of the UGC Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we have earlier seen also contains some more provisions. Both the enactments, however, deal with the same subject-matter. Both deal with the coordination and determination of excellence in the standards of teaching and examination in the Universities. Here and there, some of the words and sentences used in the Commissionerate Act may be different from those used in the UGC Act, but nevertheless, they convey the same meaning. It is just like referring to the same person with (sic by) different descriptions and names. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered by reading the statute as a whole. That is a rule which is now firmly established for the purpose of construction of statutes. The High Court appears to have gone on a tangent. The High Court would not have fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act as a whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice versa.
26. In Prem Chand Jain v. R.K Chhabra (1984) 2 SCC 302, (1984) 2 SCR 883 this Court has held that the UGC Act falls under Entry 66 of List I. It is then unthinkable as to how the State could pass a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List III, unless it encroaches Entry 66 of List I. Such an encroachment is patent and obvious. The Commissionerate Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and is hereby declared void and inoperative.
27. In the result, these appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court is reversed. There shall be a direction to the State not to enforce the provisions of the impugned Act.
28. Before parting with the case we may say a word more. The impugned Act was the result of a report from a High Power Committee constituted by the State Government. The Committee went into the affairs of the higher education in the State. The Committee examined among other things, the curricula and courses of studies. The Committee found as a fact that there is no proper coordination and academic planning among the various bodies. It recommended to the State Government the need to pass a proper legislation to streamline the higher education. The State Government accepted the recommendations and passed the Act in question. The Act now disappears for want of legislative competence. What about the need to enact that Act? It will not vanish into thin air. The defects and deficiencies pointed out by the High Power Committee in regard to higher education may continue to remain to the detriment of the interest of the State and the Nation. Such defects in the higher education may not be an isolated feature only in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It may be a common feature in some other States as well.
29. That apart, we often hear and read in newspapers with disgust about the question papers leakage and mass copying in the University examinations. It has stripped the university degrees of all its credibility. He indeed must be blind who does not see what is all happening in some of the Universities.
30. The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education. The Parliament has enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country. It shall not falter or fail in its duty to maintain a high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped that University Grants Commission will duly discharge its responsibility to the Nation and play an increasing role to bring about the needed transformation in the academic life of the Universities.
Alert