High Court invalidates Tamil Nadu Education Act provision for lacking guidelines, deems restrictions unreasonable.

The High Court declared section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966 invalid, which was unchallenged by the respondent-State. The Court found the Act lacked guidelines for delegated authority, leading to potential arbitrariness and discrimination. Due to the absence of criteria for maintaining academic standards, the restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) were deemed unreasonable and discriminatory. Consequently, the Court held the Act as a whole invalid, as the impugned sections were inseparable from the rest of the legislation. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966.
2. Validity of specific sections: ss. 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7 read with ss. 15, 22, and 28.
3. Legislative delegation and arbitrariness.
4. Reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966:
The appellants challenged the vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966, particularly ss. 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7 read with ss. 15, 22, and 28. The High Court had struck down s. 28, which was not contested by the respondent-State.

2. Validity of Specific Sections:
Section 3 mandates private educational institutions to obtain permission from the competent authority. Section 4 requires an application for permission in a prescribed form with a fee. Section 6 empowers the competent authority to grant or refuse permission, while s. 7 allows for cancellation of permission under certain conditions. Section 22 gives the State Government the power to exempt institutions from the Act. Section 28, declared invalid by the High Court, allowed the Government to remove difficulties in implementing the Act.

3. Legislative Delegation and Arbitrariness:
The Act was impugned for not providing guidelines for the exercise of power by the delegated authority, leading to potential arbitrariness and discrimination. The Court noted that the Act failed to indicate conditions for granting or refusing permission, leaving the authority with unrestricted discretion. The Court emphasized that legislative policy and rule formulation are essential legislative functions that cannot be delegated without adequate guidelines.

4. Reasonableness of Restrictions under Article 19(1)(g):
The appellants argued that the restrictions imposed by the Act on tutorial institutions were unreasonable and could not be justified under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the Act did not provide any criteria for maintaining academic standards or other essential requirements, rendering the provisions unfair and discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the impugned sections of the Act were invalid due to the lack of guidelines and the potential for arbitrary exercise of power. The provisions were inextricably linked with the rest of the Act, making it impossible to sever and save other parts. Consequently, the entire Act was declared ultra vires, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Appeal allowed.

---