OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

AUGUST 13, 1987

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, M.H. KANIA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List Ill-Seventh Schedule-Education-Whether State competent to legis-late on subject falling within List I.

Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986--Validity of-Whether Act within legislative competence of State Legislature.

The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) providing for the constitution of Commis-sionerate to advise the Government in matters relating to Higher Educa-tion in the State and to oversee its development with perspective plan-ning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and to perform all functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance of excellence in the standards of higher education in the State was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of high power committee con-stituted by the State Government to study the Higher Education system in the State with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and management .

The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in the High Court which, while upholding it, held that the Act fell under Entry 25 List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Act was just duplicate of the University Grants "'1 Commission Act and the State had no legislative power at all to enact it since it squarely fell under Entry 66 List I. On behalf of the State-respondent it was submitted that the enactment in pith and substance fell within Entry 25 of List III and· not under Entry 66 of' List I of the Seventh Schedule.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,

[1987] 3 S.C.R.

HELD: 1.1 Entry 25 List III relating to education lnclnding tech-nical education, medical education and Universities had been made subject to the power of Parliament to Iegis,Iate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III should, therefore, be read together. [955F-G]

1.2 Entry 66 gives power to the Union to see that required

standard of higher education in tlie country is maintained. The stan-dard of Higher Education including scientific and technical should not be lowered at the hands of any particular State or States. It is the exclusive responsibility of the Central Government to co-ordinate 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 coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, i• of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national in-terest, the legislative field in regard to 'education' has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule. [955G-H; 956A-B]

1.3 Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respe<:t 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. [956B]

1.4 The Commissionerate Act bas been drawn by and large in the

same terms as that of the U.G.C. Act. Both the enactments deal with the co-ordination and determination of excellence in the standards of teach-ing 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 J!leaning. It is just like referring the same person with different descrip-F lions and names. [966B-D]

1.5 The High Court has gone on tangent, and would not have

fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act ·;tS whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-versa. [966D]

1.6 The Commissionerate Act contains sweeping provisions en-

croaching on the autonomy of the Universities. The Commissionerate has practically taken over the academic programme and activities of the universities. The universities have been rendered irrelevant if not non-entities, [%SD; 966A-B]

1. 7 It is unthinkable as to how the State could pass parallel

enactment under Entry 25 of List DI, unless it encroaches Entry 66 or List I. Such an encroachment is patent and obvious. The Commission· erate Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and is hereby declared void and inoperative. [966E·F]

1.8 The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to co-ordination and determination of standards in lnstitutlo11s tor higher education. The Parliament bas enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, there· fore, greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country. It shall not falter or fail in its duty to maintain high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on high standards of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learn· ing with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs. [967D-E]

The University Grants Commission, it is hoped will duly dis· charge its responsibility to the Nation and play an increasing role to bring about the needed transformation in the academic life of the Universities. [967E-F]

Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Indian Alumihium Company, (1976] 1 SCR 552; Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ran-ganath, (1963] Suppl. 1SCR112; DAV College, Bhatinda etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Suppl. SCR 677; R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. _ ...... ~. State of Mysore & Ors., (1964] 6 SCR 368; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath & Ors. etc., (1971] 3 SCR 699; Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 and Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, (1984] 2 SCR 883, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1205-06 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 15582 of 1986.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale, B. Parthasarathy and K.V. Sreekumar for the Appellant.

T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. V. Grover and Ms. Sunita M. for tlie Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal on certificate raises short but an important question as to the Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act No. 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 vali-dity by holding that the Act falls under the latter Entry, but granted certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of 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 Govern-ment observed, inter-alia, that there is no proper coordination and academic planning among the various bodies like Universities, Direc-D !orate of Higher Education and University Grants Commission etc. There is no policy perspective in the development of higher education system. The Commirtee said that in order to streamline the general working and oversee the development of higher education in the State, there is need to constitute Commission to advise the Government in that matter.

The Government appears to have accepted the said report of the Committee. That is obvious from the Preamble to the Commission-erate Act. It states that "Act is to provide for the Constitution of Commissionerate to advise the Government in matters relating to Higher Education in the State and to oversee its development with pers-F pective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."

Section 2(e) defin~s "Higher Education" to mean intermediate education and education leading to degree or post graduate degree including professional and technical education.

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 Corporate body. The composition of the Commission-erate 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)1. Of the ten members of the Commission, three are Secretaries to the Government: Education Secretary, Labour Secretary and Finance and Planning Szcretary. 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 distinguised educationalist. All these persons are to be appointed only by the Government. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be whole time and salaried persons and their terms and conditions are provided under Section 5(1).

Section 9 gives overriding effect and power to the Commission-erate 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 Commis-sionerate 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 administra-tive control of the Commissionerate."

Section 9(2) provides power to the Government to appoint 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.

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 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 curriculam materials and continuing edu~ation of teachers;

(iv) co-ordinate 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 appoipted 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.

Section 11(2) provides:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any !aw relating to Universities in the State, the Board of Intermediate Educa-D tion Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, every University or college including 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.

Section 13 is another important Section. It provides power for inspection for ascertaining the fiqancial needs of University or its standards of teaching, examination and research. The Commission-erate 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 result of ·such inspection and the University shall comply with any such direction.

Section 16 states that the Commissionerate shall be guided by such directions issued by the Government on questions ofpoiicy relat-ing 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 consis-tent with the Act and the rules made thereunder.

The sole contention of Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissionerate Act is just duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act ("The UGC Act") and the State t-- 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 judgement 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:

"Co-ordination and determination of standards in institu-tion for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."

Entry 25 List III:

"Education, including technical education, medical educa-tion and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 & 66 of List I, vocational and technical training of lab-our."

Till January 3, 1977, Education was State subject under Entry 11 in List II. By the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Entry 11 was deleted and it was placed in the Concurrent List by enlarging the Entry 25, as set out above.

Entry 25 List III relating to education including technical educa-tion, 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 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 co-ordinate 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. rt is needless to state that such coordinate action in higher education with proper standards, is of paramount importance to national progress. It is in this national interest, the legislative field m regard to 'education' has been distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.

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.

In Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Company, [ 1976] 1 SCR 552 this Court said:

"The power of Parliament to legislate with respect to matters included in List I is supreme notwithstanding any-thing contained in cla11se (3) (again leaving out of consi-deration the provision of clause 2). Now what is the mean-D ing of the words "notwithstanding" in clause (1) and "sub-ject to" in clause 3; They mean that where an entry is in general terms in List I~ and part of that entry is in specific terms in List I, the entry in List takes effect notwithstand-ing the entry in List II. This is also on the principle that the 'special' excludes the 'general' entry in Listll is subject to the special entry in List I."

We may now refer to some of the decisions dealing with the inter action of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III. In Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath, [ 1963] Suppl. I SCR 112, 137. Shah J. speaking for the majority view of the Constitution Bench observed:

"Item 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legis-late is vested exclusively in the Parliament. Use of the ex-pression "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 Legis- )or latures. In Hingir Rampur Coal Co. v. State of Orissa [ 1961] 2 SCR 537, this Court ir 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 imposep by the use of the expression "sub-ject 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 ex-tent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted. If 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."

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 instruc-tion in higher education. The principles enunciated in the Krishna Rangnath case have been reiterated in D.A. V. College, Bhatinda etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1971] Suppl. SCR 677.

The power of the State to prescribe certain norms for admission to colleges came for consideration before this Court in R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors., (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 "Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher educa-tion 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 hypotheti-cal reasoning. If the impact of the State law providing for such standards on entry 66 of List I is so heavy or devastat-F ing as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central field it may be struck down. But that is question of fact to be ascertained in each case."

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

[1987] 3 S.C.R.

Narendranath & Ors. etc., [ 1971] 3 SCR 699 and in Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400.

What do we have in the present case? There is no scheme for admission to colleges. There is corporate body established under the ·-i. State enactment with powers supreme in regard to all matters pertain-B ing to higher education. To mention few, the Commissionerate constituted thereunder shall evolve perspective plan for the develop- 1 ment of higher education in the State. It must monitor and evaluate the academic programmes. It must co-ordinate the academic activities of various institutions and universities. It must oversee the develop--ment and streamline the higher education in the entire State. It shat( perform all functions necessary for the furtherance and maintenance y· of excellence in the standards ofhigher education in the State. It also controls the entire fund meant for the universities including grants given by the Central Government for higher education.

Since it was argued that 'both these enactments are in pari materia, it will be useful to compare the UGC Act with the corres-ponding provisions of the Commissionerate Act by keeping them side by side:

U.G.C.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 fot higher education or research and scientific and technical instituti-ons. It is obvious that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central

In order to bring 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 opportu-nities of earning and learning simultaneously at college level to all the students in the State, four man committee was appointed in February, 1986 , by the State Government to study the higher education

Government has some voice

. ..,..

in the determination of standards of teaching and examination in Universities, both old and new.

2. It is, therefore, proposed to establish University Grants Commission as 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 coordination of facilities and ' maintenance of standards in Universities. The Commission, in consul-talion with the University connected, 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 ]which has been [on ][any ]the [matter ]subject of an inquiry or inspection. The Commi-ssion shall also advise, whenever such advise is sought, on the establish-ment of new Universities.

system in the State witl;i special reference to curri-cula and courses of studies, Finance and Management in the Higher Education system.

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 Eduation and the Univer-sity 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 commission to advise the Government in matters relating to higher education in the State and to oversee its development. The Government have exammed the above recommendations and suggestions and decided to constitute Commissionerate of Higher Education.

[1987] 3 S.C.R.

Sec. 4 Establishment of

Sec. 3. Constitution of Commissionerate of Higher Education:

the Commission:

( l} With effect from such The Government may, by date as the Central Govern-notification, and with ment may, by notification effect on and from such in the official Gazettee, date as may be specified appoint, there shall be therein constitute established Commission Commissionerate for the by the name of the Univer-purpose of this Act sity Grants Commission. to be called The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education.

(2) The said Commission (2) The Commissionerate shall be body corporate shall be body corporate having perpetual having perpetual success-succession and common ion and common seal and seal, and shall by the shall sue and be used said name sue and be sued. by the said corporate name. (2}(b) xxx I xxx xxx Sec. 5 Composition of the Sec. 4 Composition of the Commission: Comissionerate:

( l} The Commission shall ( l) The Commissionerate consist of:-shall consist of:-(i) Chairman, and (i) Chairman (ii) Vi~-Chairman, and (ii) Vice-Chairman, and (iii) ten other members, to (iii) not more than ten be appointed by the members to be appointed by Central Government the State Government

Sec. 8 Temporary Associa-tion of persons with the Commissionerate for particular purpose

Sec. 9 Temporary Associa-tion of person with the CtJmmission for particular purpose (Both these Sections are similar\

Sec. 12 Functions of the Commission:

It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the f--Universities or other bodies concerned, all t such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ord;. -nation of University Education and for the 'Y [determination and main-]tenance of standards of teaching, examina-tion and research in University and for the purpose of performing -1 its functions under this Act, the Commission may:-

a) Inquire into the finan-cial needs of Universities

b) Allocate and disburse, out of the fund of the Comission, grants to Universities established or incorporated by or under 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

Sec. 11 Powers and Functions of the Commissionerate It shall be the general duty of the Commissionerate to:• a) evolve prospective plan for the development of higher education in the State; b) administer and release grants-in-aid to Univer-sities as private colleges in the State and report the same to the Government. c) xxx xxx xxx d) monitor and evaluate the academic programmes in higher education and enforce accountability in the system. c) xxx xxx f) xxx xxx g) co-ordinate the academic activities of various institutions of higher education in the State. xxx xxx p) Perform any other functions necessary to the furtherance and maintenance of excel!-ence in the standards of higher education in the

(1987] 3 S.C.R. -t-

(2) The Commissionerate shall communicate to the University the date on which any inspec-tion under sub-section (1) shall be made and the Univer-sity shall be entitled to be associate with inspection

(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

Central Government. Government.

(2) If any dispute arises (2) If any dispute arises between the Central between the Government Government and the Commi· and the Commissionerate ssion as to whether as to whether question question is or is not is or is not question of question of policy policy relating to State relating to national purposes, or whether an purposes the decision of emergency has arisen, the the Central Government decision of the Government shall be final. thereon shall be final.

Sec. 25 Power to make Rules Sec. 18 Power to make Rules Sec. 26 Power to make Sec. 19 Power to make Regulations. Regulations."

We have extracted only such of the provisions similar to those contained in the UGC Ac.I. That is not all. The Commissionerate Act yet contains sweeping provisions encroaching on the autonomy of the Universities. Under Section 11( l)(c) it is for the Commissionerate to decide on the need for, and location of new colleges and courses of study including Engineering Co1leges. Section 11( l)(f) provides power to the Commissionerate to establish and develop resources centre for curriculuam 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 exami-nation reforms and assume accreditation functions [Section 11(1)(h) & (i)]. Section 11( l)(j) states that it is the duty of the Commissionerate to organise entrance test for University admission. Section 11( l)(k) states that it shall administer and grant scholarship and organise work study programmes. Section 11(1)(0) provides power to transfer teachers from one aided private college to another such college, sub-ject to the rules made by the Government. There is yet devastating provision on the autonomy of Universities. Section 11(2) states that every Urtiversity 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 relat· ing to Universities in the State, the :13oard of Intermediate Education

Act, l97 land the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.

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.

' It is apparent from this discussion that the Commissionerate Act -1

has been drawn by and large in in the same terms as that of the U.G.C. Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we have earlier seen also contains some more provisions. Both the enactments, however, deal with the [-f ]

has been drawn by and large in in the same terms as that of the U.G.C. 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 co-ordination and determina-

tion 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 the same person with different descriptio~s and names. The intention of the legislature has to be gathered by reading the statute as whole. That is rule which is now firmly established for the purpose of construction of statutes. The High Court appears to have gone on tangent. The High Court would not have fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act as whole and compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-cersa.

In Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, [ 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 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.

In the result, these appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court is reversed. There shall be direction to the State not to enforce the provisions of the impugned Act.

Before parting with the case we may say word more. The impugned Act was the result of report from High Power Commit-tee constituted by the State Government. The Committee weal 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 fact .that there is no proper coordination and academic planning among the various bodies. It recommended to the State Government the need to pass proper legislation to stream-

line the higher education. The State Government accepted the recom-A mendations and passed the Act in question. The Act now disappears for want of legislation competence. What about the need to enact that Act[0 ]It will not vanish to the thin air. The defects and deficiency pointed out by the High Power Committee in regard to higher educa-tion 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 common feature in some other States as well.

That apart, .we often hear and read in news papers with disgust about the question papers leakage and mass copying in the University examinations. It has stripped the university degrees of all its credibi-lity. He indeed must be blind who does not see what is all happening In '{ some of the Universities.

The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive autho-rity in regard to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education. The Parliament has enacted the CGC Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, therefore, greater role to play in shaping the academic life of the country. It shall not falter or fail in its duty to maintain high standard in the Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on high standards of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemi-nation 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 to role bring about the needed transformation in the academic life of the Universities.

Appeal allowed.