Holding

The Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 is beyond the legislative competence of the State, falls within Entry 66 of List I, and is void and inoperative.

Summary

The Osmania University Teachers Association challenged the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986, alleging that it was a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act and fell within the Union's exclusive legislative field under Entry 66 of List I. The State argued that the Act pertained to education, which is listed in Entry 25 of List III and therefore within its competence. The Supreme Court examined the relationship between Entry 66 (Union) and Entry 25 (Concurrent) and held that matters of coordination and standards of higher education are exclusively reserved for Parliament. It found that the Commissionerate Act encroached upon the Union's field, mirroring the UGC Act, and thus was beyond the State's legislative power. Consequently, the Act was declared void and inoperative, and the High Court's judgment upholding it was reversed.

Issues considered

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 falls under Entry 66 of List I or Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.
Whether the Act is a duplicate of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and therefore ultra vires the State Legislature.
Whether the State Legislature has any competence to enact legislation on coordination and standards of higher education.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986s. 11, s. 13, s. 16, s. 18, s. 19, s. 25, s. 2(c), s. 2(e), s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 9
Constitution of India
University Grants Commission Act, 1956

Subjects

legislative competenceeducationhigher educationUnion-State relationsEntry 66 List IEntry 25 List IIIvoid actUniversity Grants Commissionacademic autonomy

Judgment

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

AUGUST 13, 1987

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, M.H. KANIA AND B
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.
c
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 a Commis- D
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 a high power committee con- E
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 .
. .'r
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 F
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 a duplicate of the University Grants
I
"'1 Commission Act and the State had no legislative power at all to enact it G
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, H

949
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A 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]

B 1.2 Entry 66 gives power to the Union to see that a required
4
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
C project of national importance. It is needless to state, that such a y
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]
D 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
E 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 a tangent, and would not have
fallen into an error if it had perused the UGC Act ·;tS a whole and
compared it with the Commissionerate Act or vice-versa. [966D]
.,...
G 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]
H 1.7 It is unthinkable as to how the State could pass a parallel
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. 951
-+ enactment under Entry 25 of List DI, unless it encroaches Entry 66 or
A
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 B
lnstitutlo11s tor higher education. The Parliament bas enacted the UGC
r Act for that purpose. The University Grants Commission has, there·
fore, 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 high standards of
general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learn·
c
y 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 D
~ 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. E
...... ~.
_ 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. F
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 G
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 H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal on a certificate raises
A
a 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 ~
B Constitution. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld its vali-
dity 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.

The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of
a high power committee constituted by the State Government to study
c 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 a Commission to advise the Government in
that matter.
E
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 a
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 a degree or post graduate degree
including professional and technical education.
G
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 Commission-
erate is provided under Section 4. The Commissionerate shall consist
H of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and not more than 10 members [Section
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.J 953

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, A
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. B
The last one shall be a 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 c
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 D
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."
E
.... !~ Secretary
Section 9(2) provides power to the Government to appoint a
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 F
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;

I (ii) monitor and evaluate the academic programmes in higher G
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 H
of higher education in the State;
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

(v) undertake examination reforms;
A
(vi) establish linkages between Universities industries and
community development organisations:

(vii) transfer teachers appoipted in aided posts from one aided
B 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

c
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 a private
college in the State shall obtain the prior approval of the
Commissionerate in regard to-

(i) creation of new posts;
E
(ii) financial management; and

(iii) starting of new higher educational institutions.

Section 13 is another important Section. It provides power for
F inspection for ascertaining the fiqancial needs of a 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
a result of ·such inspection and the University shall comply with any
G 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
H make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section 19
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETTY, J.J 955

provides power to the Commissionerate to make regulations consis-
A
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 a 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 B
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:
c
Entry 66 List I:

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

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 E
lab-our."

Till January 3, 1977, Education was a 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. F

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 a required standard of G
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 H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

project of national importance. rt is needless to state that such a
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 m regard to 'education' has been
distributed between List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.

B 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.

C
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
E 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. 'f
speaking for the majority view of the Constitution Bench observed:
F
"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
G 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-
H ject to" in an entry in :List II the power is taken away from
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETfY, J.) 957

the State Legislature. Power of the State to Legislate in A
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 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 B
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 C
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
"·-1 & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1964] 6 SCR 368 where Subba Rao D
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 E
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 a 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 G
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 H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

Narendranath & Ors. etc., [1971] 3 SCR 699 and in Ambesh Kumar v.
A
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 a corporate body established under the ·-i.
State enactment with powers supreme in regard to all matters pertain-
B
ing to higher education. To mention a few, the Commissionerate
constituted thereunder shall evolve a 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(
c 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.

D 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
E

1. Statement of Objects and reasons:
...,..
"The Constitution of India In order to bring a change
vests Parliament with in the higher education
F exclusive authority in system in the State so as
regard to Co-ordination to make the courses of
and determination of study more relevant to the
standards in institutions needs of the modern society
fot higher education or and to provide opportu-
research and scientific nities of earning and
G and technical instituti- learning simultaneously
ons. It is obvious at college level to all the
that neither coordination students in the State, a
nor determination of four man committee was
standards is possible appointed in February, 1986
unless the Central , by the State Government to
H Government has some voice study the higher education
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETfY. J.] 959
.....
in the determination of system in the State witl;i
A
standards of teaching special reference to curri-
and examination in cula and courses of studies,
Universities, both old Finance and Management in
and new. the Higher Education system.
~··
B

t
2. It is, therefore, The Committee in its
proposed to establish report submitted to
a University Grants Government observed
Commission as a that there is no proper
corporate body which co-ordination and academic
will inquire into the planning among the various
y financial needs of bodies like universities; c
universities and the Directorate of Higher
allocate and disburse Eduation and the Univer-
grants to Universities sity Grants Commission etc.
for any general or and there is no policy
specified purpose. The perspective in the
~ D
Commission will act as an development of the
expert body to advise Higher Education system
the Central Government in the State and in order
on problems connected to streamline the general
with the coordination of working of the higher
,_.,,
facilities and
maintenance of standards
' Education system in the
State the Committee
E
in Universities. suggested to constitute
The Commission, in consul- a commission to advise
'r talion with the University the Government in
connected, will also have matters relating to
the power to cause an higher education in the
F
inspection or inquiry to State and to oversee
be made of any university its development. The
established by law in Government have exammed
India and to advise the the above recommendations
university on any matter and suggestions and
'{ which has been the decided to constitute
subject of an inquiry or G
a Commissionerate of
inspection. The Commi- Higher Education.
ssion shall also advise,
whenever such advise is
sought, on the establish-
ment of new Universities. H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

Sec. 4 Establishment of Sec. 3. Constitution of
A the Commission: Commissionerate of
Higher Education:

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

(2) The said Commission (2) The Commissionerate
shall be a body corporate shall be a body corporate
D having perpetual having perpetual success-
succession and a common ion and a 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
E
Sec. 5 Composition of the Sec. 4 Composition of the
Commission: Comissionerate:

( l} The Commission shall ( l) The Commissionerate
F consist of:- shall consist of:-
(i) A Chairman, and (i) A Chairman
(ii) A Vi~-Chairman, and (ii) A 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
G
Sec. 9 Temporary Associa- Sec. 8 Temporary Associa-
tion ofperson with the tion of persons with the
CtJmmission for particular Commissionerate for
purpose particular purpose
H (Both these Sections are similar\
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.J 961
-t
Sec. 12 Functions of the Sec. 11 Powers and Functions
A
Commission: of the Commissionerate
It shall be the general duty It shall be the general duty
of the Commission to take, of the Commissionerate to:•
in consultation with the
f-- Universities or other a) evolve a prospective
B
bodies concerned, all plan for the development
t such steps as it may
think fit for the
of higher education in the
State;
promotion and co-ord;.
- nation of University
Education and for the
b) administer and release
grants-in-aid to Univer-
'Y determination and main- sities as private c
tenance of standards colleges in the State and
of teaching, examina- report the same to the
tion and research in Government.
University and for the
purpose of performing c) xxx xxx xxx
-1 its functions under D
this Act, the Commission d) monitor and evaluate
may:- the academic programmes
in higher education and
enforce accountability
,._ in the system.
E
""" a) Inquire into the finan-
cial needs of Universities
c) xxx xxx

y b) Allocate and disburse,
f) xxx xxx

out of the fund of the g) co-ordinate the
Comission, grants to academic activities of F
Universities established various institutions of
or incorporated by or higher education in the
under a Central Act for State.
the maintenance and
,
'->{ development of such xxx xxx
universities or for G
any other general or p) Perform any other
specified purpose. functions necessary to
the furtherance and
c) Allocate and disburse maintenance of excel!-
out of the fund of the ence in the standards of
Commission, such grants higher education in the H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.
-t-
to other Universities as State.
A
it may deem necessary or
appropriate for the
develo~ment of such
Universities or for the
maintenance, or develop-
1
B ment or both, of any
specified activities of 1
such Universities or
for any other general or
specified purpose re-
commended to any Univer-
-
c sity the measure necess- y
ary for the improvement
of University education
and advise the Univer-
sity upon the action
to be taken for the
D purpose of implementing
such recommendations.
Sec. 13 Inspection: Sec. 13 Inspection:
(I) For the purpose of (1) For the purpose of
ascertaining the finan- ascertrining the financial ~
E cial needs of a Univer- needs of a University or its ~

sity or its standards of standards of teaching, exami-
teaching, examination and nation and research, the
research, the Commission Commissionerate may, after
may, after consultation with consultation with the Uni-
the University cause an versity, cause an inspection
F inspection of any department of any department or depart-
or departments thereof to ments thereof to be made in
be made in such manner as such manner as may be
may be prescribed and by prescribed and by such
such person or persons as person or persons as it may
it may direct. direct.
G
(2) The Commission (2) The Commissionerate shall
shall communicate to communicate to the University
the University the date the date on which any inspec-
on which any inspection tion under sub-section (1)
under sub-section ( 1) is shall be made and the Univer-
H to be made and the sity shall be entitled to be
University shall be associate with inspection
,

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. [SHETfY, J.] 963
-+-
entitled to be associa- in such manner as may be
A
ted with the inspection prescribed.
in such manner as may
be prescribed. (3) The Commi~sionerate shall
communicate to the University
t its views in regard to the

- result of any such inspection B

r 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 c
direction.

Sec. 16 Fund of the Sec. 12 Fund of the
Commission Commissionerate:
·~ D
( 1) The Commission shall ( 1) The Commissionerate shall
have its own fund and have its own fund consisting
all sum which may, from of the grants from Government
time to time, be paid voted by the Legislative Ass-
to it by the Central embly of the State towards
Government and all the grants to Universities, and
.... / receipts of the Commi- aided Junior and Degree
E
ssion (including any Colleges and grants received
sum which any State from Central Government for
7 Government or any other higher education.
authority or person may
handover to the Commi- (2) All moneys belonging to F
ssion) shall be carried the Fund shall be deposited
to the fund and all in such banks or invested in
payments by the such manner as may, subject
Commission shall be to the approval of the
made therefrom. Government, be decided by the
~ Commissionerate. G
(2) All moneys belong-
ing to the fund shall (3) The Commissionerate may
be deposited in such spend such sums as it thinks
banks or invested in fit for performing its
such manner as may, functions under this Act,
subject to the approval and such sums shall be H
I

964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A of the Central Govern- treated as expenditure
ment be decided by payable out of the fund
the Commissioin. of the Commissionerate.

(3) The Commission may
spend such sums as it
B 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.
c
Sec. 18 Annual Report Sec. 14 Annual Report

The Commission shall The Commissionerate shall
prepare, once in every prepare once in every year,
year in such form and at in such form and at such time
D such time as may be as may be prescribed an Annual
prescribed, an annual Report giving a true and full
report giving a true and account of its activities
full account of its acti- during the previous year,
vities during the previous and copies thereof shall be
year, and copies thereof forwarded to the Government
E shall be forwarded to the and the Government shall
Central Government and the cause the same to be laid
Government shall cause the before the Legislative
same to be laid before Assembly of the State.
both Houses of Parliament.

F Sec. 19 Accounts & Audit Sec. 15 Accounts & Audit

Sec. 20 Directions by Sec. 16 Directions by the
the Central Government Governments

( 1) In the discharge of ( 1) In the discharge of
G its functions under this its functions under this Act,
Act. the Commission shall the Commissionerate shall be
be guided by such direc- guided by such directions
tions on questions of on question of policy
policy relating to relating to State purposes
national purposes as may or in case of any emergency as
H be given to it by the may be given to it by the
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, J.) 965
• i-
Central Government. Government. A

(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 a as to whether a question
~- question is or is not a is or is not a question of B
question of policy policy relating to State
~ relating to national
purposes the decision of
purposes, or whether an
emergency has arisen, the
the Central Government decision of the Government

- shall be final.

Sec. 25 Power to make Rules
thereon shall be final.

Sec. 18 Power to make Rules
c
-(
Sec. 26 Power to make Sec. 19 Power to make
Regulations. Regulations."

We have extracted only such of the provisions similar to those D
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 E
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 F
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 a devastating
'of provision on the autonomy of Universities. Section 11(2) states that G
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 H

I
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A 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.
'
B It is apparent from this discussion that the Commissionerate Act -1
has been drawn by and large 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
- 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
c 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 a whole. That is a rule which is now firmly established for the
D 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-cersa.

In Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra, [ 1984] 2 SCR 883 this
E 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.
F
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.

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

I
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF A.P. (SHETTY, l.) 967

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 B
an isolated feature only in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It may be a
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- C
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 D
CGC 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
standards of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemi-
nation of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all E
·'" 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.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed. F