ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-413

 

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Impugned Act is patently arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the mala fides in passing of the Impugned Act are apparent inasmuch as the statements made by Captain Amarinder Singh, who at the relevant time was in the opposition, would clearly show that he was opposed to the establishment of the¹⁰⁰ Khalsa University.

It is submitted that Captain Amarinder Singh had made public statements that he was "touchy" about the Khalsa¹²⁰ College, that he would not permit the ruling party to tinker with the status of the same and that, after he comes to power, he will reverse the decision. It is submitted that immediately after Captain Amarinder Singh became the Chief Minister of Punjab in 2017, an Ordinance was promulgated repealing the 2016 Act, and shortly thereafter, the said Ordinance got the imprimatur of the legislature by the passing of the Impugned Act dated 17th July 2017.

The learned senior²⁰⁰ counsel further submitted that the State of Punjab had come up with the 2010 Policy and under the said Policy, 16 Universities were established. However, it was only the Khalsa University which was picked up and abolished. He submitted that²⁴⁰ 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 further submitted that the Impugned Act is passed on a non-existent factual matrix. He submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Impugned Act shows that the only³⁰⁰ reason for passing it is to "protect the heritage character of Khalsa College". He submitted that the SOR shows that the Impugned Act was passed on the basis that the Khalsa College has, 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 character³⁶⁰ and pristine glory.

He submitted that 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. He submitted that the Khalsa Society⁴⁰⁰ comprises of various other establishments apart from Khalsa College and that the Khalsa University was established to provide affiliation for only three colleges namely Khalsa College of Pharmacy, Khalsa College of Education and Khalsa College for Women.

He submits that all the three institutions were started after more than half a century of establishment of Khalsa College. It is submitted that Khalsa University had also planned various other colleges or institutions which would be affiliated to it. However, the same⁴⁸⁰ was to be done without in any way affecting the Khalsa College. As such, it is submitted that the reasoning⁵⁰⁰ given in the SOR that the Impugned Act was being passed only to protect the heritage character of Khalsa College is formed on a factually erroneous matrix.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Impugned Act was patently arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others has held that the ground of manifest arbitrariness is also available for examining the validity of a legislation. It is submitted that if it is found that the legislative⁶⁰⁰ enactment is not based on an intelligible differentia, then such a classification would not be permissible and the enactment would be liable to be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness.

The learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a reasonable classification having a nexus with the object to be achieved is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. He submits 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.

The learned AAG submits⁷⁰⁰ that there is a presumption with regard to the validity of a legislative action. He submits that the burden with⁷²⁰ regard to invalidity is on the person who challenges it. It is submitted that the classification is based on the fact that the Khalsa College had, over a period of century, received a heritage status. The name "Khalsa" was identified with the Khalsa College. He submitted that the establishment of Khalsa University tinkered with the heritage status of Khalsa College. The learned AAG further submitted that the Khalsa University and the Khalsa College have been established in the same premises⁸⁰⁰ and therefore there is a possibility of confusion being caused in the minds of a general observer. He further submitted that, over a period of time, the Khalsa College had earned a huge reputation and was playing a leading role⁸⁴⁰ in Punjabi socio-religious society. It is submitted that the establishment of a private University could diminish its nature.

It is submitted that 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 learned AAG further submitted that the appellants had no vested⁹⁰⁰ right in their status as a University. It is submitted that shortly after the 2016 Act was enacted, the Impugned Act came to be enacted. During that short period, a few students were admitted. However, the Impugned Act also took care of the said students inasmuch as the colleges where they were studying were affiliated with the other Universities. He⁹⁶⁰ therefore submits that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education had come up with the¹⁰⁰⁰ 2010 Policy. The 2010 Policy was framed in order to attract high quality private sector investment and expertise in the realm of higher education and provides for establishment and incorporation of private self-financed Universities in the State of Punjab. By the 2010 Policy, it was decided to permit establishment of self-financed universities which shall not receive any grant or aid from the State Government. However, it provided for laying down a rationale proposal and well-defined conditions for the establishment of¹⁰⁸⁰ such universities in order to safeguard the interest of the stakeholders, ex-students, staff members and genuine promoters. ¹⁰⁹⁷