2008 (12) TMI 732 - SC - Indian Laws

Chancellor's Limit on Statute Review & Vice-Chancellor's Procedural Role

The Supreme Court held that the Chancellor cannot consider the validity of a statute, as judicial review of constitutionality is within the purview of ... Approval power of the Vice-Chancellor over a college management's decision to dismiss, remove or punish a teacher under Section 35(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - proviso preserving administrative autonomy of minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution - efficacy of alternative remedy by reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - writ jurisdiction despite existence of an alternative remedy where vires of a statute, violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction is alleged - Chancellor's power to decide conformity of a university authority's decision with the Act, Statutes or Ordinances but not to determine the constitutionality of the statuteEfficacy of alternative remedy by reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - writ jurisdiction despite existence of an alternative remedy where vires of a statute, violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction is alleged - Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition as barred by the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that availability of an alternative remedy under the Act is not an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction. Where the vires of a statute is challenged, or where an order is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court may properly entertain a writ petition despite an alternative statutory remedy. The Chancellor's remedy under Section 68 may be efficacious in many cases, but the existence of that remedy did not obligingly oust the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction in the present matter. Having regard to the legal questions raised and the intricacy of the issues (including constitutional challenges and alleged jurisdictional error), the High Court should have considered the petition on merits instead of refusing to exercise its jurisdiction solely on the ground of an alternative remedy. [Paras 20, 21, 25, 26]The High Court's dismissal on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy is set aside and the matter is remitted for consideration on merits.Chancellor's power to decide conformity of a university authority's decision with the Act, Statutes or Ordinances - Chancellor cannot determine the constitutionality (vires) of a statute - Whether the Chancellor under Section 68 can determine the constitutionality of the Act or Statutes. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that although the Chancellor is conferred wide powers to decide whether a decision of a university authority conforms with the Act, Statutes or Ordinances, the Chancellor-being a statutory authority-cannot adjudicate on the constitutionality of the statute itself. Determination of vires is a judicial function vested in superior courts; a statutory authority is not competent to finally decide the constitutional validity of the statute under which it is constituted. Accordingly, matters raising questions as to the vires of statutory provisions ordinarily fall for judicial determination and are not for the Chancellor to decide as a substitute for court adjudication. [Paras 16, 17]The Chancellor's power under Section 68 does not extend to determining the constitutionality of the statute; constitutional vires must be determined by the courts.Approval power of the Vice-Chancellor over a college management's decision to dismiss, remove or punish a teacher under Section 35(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - proviso preserving administrative autonomy of minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution - Whether the legality and validity of the Vice-Chancellor's order refusing approval of the Managing Committee's decision, and the constitutional challenge to sub-section (2) of Section 35 and its proviso vis-a -vis Article 30(1), should be finally determined in the present proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court did not decide the merits of the constitutional and statutory contentions concerning the scope and validity of the Vice-Chancellor's approval power and the proviso protecting minority institutions. Having allowed the appellants to raise those grounds, the Court held that those intricate legal questions are to be considered on merits by the High Court. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's order which declined to entertain the petition and directed that the High Court proceed to adjudicate the substantive issues, including the challenge to the statutory provisions and the manner in which the Vice-Chancellor's powers were exercised. [Paras 11, 25, 26]The constitutional and statutory issues concerning Section 35(2) and its proviso were not decided on merits by this Court and are remitted to the High Court for adjudication.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy is set aside. The High Court is directed to consider the matter on merits, including the appellants' constitutional and statutory challenges, and no costs are awarded. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.2. Validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 07th/12th July 2006.3. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973:The appellants challenged the constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The provision mandates that any decision to dismiss or remove a teacher must be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and requires his approval unless it pertains to a minority institution. The proviso allows the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that the prescribed procedure has been followed. The Supreme Court noted that the Chancellor of the University, being a creature of the statute, cannot consider the validity of the statute. The power of judicial review regarding the constitutionality of a statute is vested in superior courts, not statutory authorities.2. Validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 07th/12th July 2006:The Vice-Chancellor refused to approve the Managing Committee's decision to remove the Principal, citing procedural non-compliance. The appellants contended that the Vice-Chancellor's order was not in accordance with the procedures established by the governing body and violated the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the Vice-Chancellor's regulatory power is permissible under law to ensure procedural compliance but does not extend to granting prior approval for decisions made by minority institutions.3. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973:The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act, which allows for a reference to the Chancellor. The appellants argued that this remedy was not efficacious. The Supreme Court held that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, they are not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of an Act. The Court emphasized that the Chancellor's power is limited to ensuring conformity with the Act and does not extend to adjudicating intricate questions of law or jurisdictional errors.4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction solely on the ground of the existence of an alternative remedy. The Court highlighted that the High Court should have considered the merits of the case, especially given the appellants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory provisions and allegations of jurisdictional errors by the Vice-Chancellor. The Court cited precedents where the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction in cases involving fundamental rights, violations of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. The Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction in cases involving significant legal questions and procedural irregularities, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was requested to consider the matter on its merits.