R M SALAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these actions, by one R.M. Salam, stated to be a social worker and Joint Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I) is relatable to the Constitutional vires and validity of the two Bills, namely, the Madras University and the Annamalai University Bill, 1994 (Legislative Assembly Bill No. 4 of 1994) and the Tamil Nadu Universities Bill, 1994 (Legislative Assembly Bill No. 5 of 1994), to amend and consolidate the laws relating to Madras, Annamalai and certain other Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu and for matters, connected therewith and incidental thereto, recently passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, replacing the Governor by the Chief Minister, as Chancellor of all the Universities in the State and more particularly, Cls. 1O(1) and 24(1) of both the Bills and Cle. 2(11) of the earlier Bill.

(2.) THE emergence of such a challenge is founded on manifold grounds thus: (1) After the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, "education" had been brought under Concurrent List (Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule) and the State had no competence to pass legislation, pertaining to Universities and Institutes of/Higher Education, in including technical education, medical education and Universities. (2) Non-compliance of obtaining proper instructions or permission or sanction from the President of India, for the introduction of the Bills in the Assembly, as per Art. 213 of the Constitution renders the Bills invalid. (3) THE Bills would destroy the vital link between the Centre and the State maintained by the institution of the Governor. (4) THE Bills would destroy the autonomy of the Universities and jeopardise independent educational system, free from political influence. (5) THE Bills would suffer from serious vice or infirmity, as they do not provide for a situation, when the State comes under the President's rule, when there would be no Chief Minister and in such an eventuality, there would be a vacuum and all the Universities would have to function, without a Chancellor. (6) THE Bills suffer from the vice of excessive delegation, by conferment of Legislative power on the Syndicate-an executive body, to make Statutes and amend or repeal the same. (7) Cl. 2(11) of the Legislative Assembly Bill No. 4 of 1994, defining "Founder", in relation to Annamalai University, to mean only male descendants, excluding female descendants, regarding the post of Pro-Chancellorship, is discriminatory, as violative of Arts. 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution, besides being a Legislative judgment amounting to a Bill of Attainder, and hence unconstitutional as violative of rule of law. (8) THE invalidity is writ large, on the face of the Bills, in as much as the provisions therein relating to the constitution and composition of authorities in the Universities are totally at variance with their Objects and Reasons.

(3.) THE petitioner also filed WMP Nos. 1113 and 1114 of 1994 seeking interim directions to respondents 2 and 3, not to give assent to those Bills, pending disposal of these actions, on the ground that the assent, if given, would result in opening floodgates of political interference, in the governance of the Universities, resulting in irreparable damage to the higher education system in the State.