Read Time: 18 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that if a legislation affecting a single person, entity or undertaking is being enacted, there should be special circumstances requiring such an enactment and such special circumstances should be gathered from the material taken into consideration by the competent legislature and shall include the Parliamentary or Legislative Debates. 

"Though a legislation affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved. There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from the rest of the group," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.

The court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 as unconstitutional. It declared the Khalsa University Act, 2016 would be deemed to be in force and status quo as it directed on May 29, 2017 would stand restored.

The State of Punjab framed the Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010.

The Khalsa College Charitable Society, Amritsar, in existence since 1892, submitted a proposal to the State Government for setting up a self-financing University in Punjab on the basis of the 2010 Policy.

The Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed the Khalsa University Act, 2016. After the Governor's approval and publication of the Act in gazette on November 17, 2016, the Khalsa University got established and started imparting courses in 26 programmes and 215 students were admitted for the academic session 2016-17. 

However, after the change of government, the state government promulgated an Ordinance repealing the 2016 Act. Shortly thereafter, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017, which received assent of the Governor on July 4, 2017 and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary on July 17, 2017. 

Senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing on behalf of the appellants Khalsa University, submitted that the Act is patently arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

He said Captain Amarinder Singh, then leader in opposition, had made public statements that he was “touchy” about the Khalsa College, that he would not permit the ruling party to tinker with its status and that, after he comes to power, he will reverse the decision. Immediately after Captain Singh became the Chief Minister of Punjab in 2017, the legislature passed the impugned Act of July 17, 2017.

Under the 2010 Policy, 16 Universities were established, however, it was only the Khalsa University which was picked up and abolished. He submitted that picking up a single University out of 16 Universities which were established as per the 2010 Policy is patently arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

He submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the impugned Act showed that the only reason for passing it was to “protect the heritage character of Khalsa College”, as the Khalsa College had, over a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa Heritage and the Khalsa University established in 2016 was likely to shadow and damage its character and pristine glory. 

He also said the Khalsa College was established in 1892 and the appellants had clearly given an undertaking that the establishment of the Khalsa University would not touch the Khalsa College. 

The counsel also contended that the reasoning that the Act was being passed only to protect the heritage character of Khalsa College was formed on a factually erroneous matrix. 

He said that a reasonable classification having a nexus with the object to be achieved is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that merely because Khalsa University has been singled out as against the other Universities established under the 2010 Policy cannot be a ground for holding the impugned Act to be invalid.

He also said that there is a presumption with regard to the validity of a legislative action. He claimed the establishment of Khalsa University tinkered with the heritage status of Khalsa College. 

He said that the Khalsa University and the Khalsa College have been established in the same premises and therefore there is a possibility of confusion being caused in the minds of a general observer. He further submitted that it was, over a period of time, the Khalsa College had earned a huge reputation and was playing a leading role in Punjabi socio-religious society.

The establishment of a private University could diminish its nature. There was further a possibility that Khalsa Society would allocate greater attention and resources to the private university and neglect Khalsa College which has a historic value, the state counsel said. 

The court examined issues whether an enactment for giving out a differential treatment to a single entity is valid in law or not and secondly, whether the impugned Act is liable to be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness.

The bench said even a legislation dealing with a single entity or an undertaking would be permissible in law, if it is based on a reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved. The classification should be such wherein an entity or an undertaking to whom a special treatment is provided can be singled out on the basis of some reasonable classification from the others in the same class, it added.

"It is thus a settled position of law that though a legislation affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved. There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from the rest of the group," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that wherever the top court upheld the legislation affecting the single entity, institution or undertaking, it found that it was done in emergent and extreme circumstances preceded by enquiries, parliamentary debates, etc. It was done when the legislature took into consideration the relevant material and found it expedient to do so, court highlighted.

"Undisputedly, the impugned Act is a single entity legislation repealing the 2016 Act by which the Khalsa University was established. The only reasoning as could be found in the impugned Act is that the Khalsa College, Amritsar has, over a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa Heritage and the appellant was likely to shadow and damage its character and pristine glory," the bench said.

The Khalsa University has also made specific averments with regard to discrimination inasmuch as there are more number of Universities in Malwa region and Doaba region as against the Majha region, the court said.

"In any case, no material is placed on record as to what was the compelling and emergent situation so as to enact a law which could affect the Khalsa University. No material is placed on record to show that there were any discussions prior to the impugned Act being passed or as to what material was placed and taken into consideration by the competent legislature," the bench said.

The court found that the impugned Act singled out the Khalsa University, amongst 16 private Universities in the State and no reasonable classification had been pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities. 

"The impugned Act therefore would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that it had been held that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. When something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such a legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. Thus, the arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution, it said.

Going by the appellant's undertaking and map, the bench said it is only the Khalsa College established in 1892 which is a heritage one. 

All other buildings have been subsequently constructed having no resemblance with the Khalsa College building. It can thus be seen that the very foundation that Khalsa University would shadow and damage the character and pristine glory of Khalsa College which has, over a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa heritage is on a non-existent basis, the bench said.

"It could thus be seen that the impugned Act, which was enacted with a purpose which was non-existent, would fall under the ambit of manifest arbitrariness and would therefore be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We are therefore of the considered view that the impugned Act is also liable to be set aside on the same ground," the bench said.

Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment of November 1, 2017.

Case Title: Khalsa University And Another Vs The State of Punjab And Another