University statute amendment: restrictive course limits struck down, while Chancellor appointment approval requirements were upheld.

An amendment to the university statute that inserted an exclusive course restriction and curtailed existing centres was treated as impermissibly narrowing the institution's educational mandate and as trenching on the higher-education and standards field already occupied by the UGC framework; that restriction and its proviso were invalid. By contrast, the amended procedure for appointing the Chancellor, requiring a panel and State Government approval, was regarded as preserving the Board of Management's role and not destroying the University's essential autonomy, so that reform was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to Section 4(1) of the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995, and the proviso inserted therein, curtailing the University's courses and centres, were ultra vires; (ii) Whether the amendment to Section 9(2) requiring a panel and State Government approval for appointment of the Chancellor was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to Section 4(1) of the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995, and the proviso inserted therein, curtailing the University's courses and centres, were ultra vires.

Analysis: The governing statute was read as establishing the University primarily for education, research, and dissemination of knowledge, with Vedic learning and allied subjects forming an important part of its objectives rather than the exclusive field of instruction. The amended wording, by inserting "only" and deleting "dissemination of knowledge," was held to impose an impermissible restriction on the scope of education and on the courses already being conducted. The Court held that the expression "and" in the provision and in the Preamble had to be read disjunctively in the context of the statute, and that a narrow construction would defeat the legislative purpose. The proviso requiring prior State approval for courses and centres was also found to trench upon the field occupied by the University Grants Commission regime and to exceed State legislative competence in relation to standards and higher education.

Conclusion: The amendment to Section 4(1) and the proviso inserted therein were held ultra vires and were set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Section 9(2) requiring a panel and State Government approval for appointment of the Chancellor was valid.

Analysis: The amended provision still preserved the Board of Management's role in recommending persons of eminence and did not take away the essential autonomy of the University in the appointment process. The requirement of State approval was not found to violate equality or the University's constitutional or statutory autonomy. No infirmity was found in the amended procedure for appointment of the Chancellor.

Conclusion: The amendment to Section 9(2) was upheld and was held valid, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of invalidating the amendment to Section 4(1) and its proviso, while the challenge to Section 9(2) failed; the remaining parts of the High Court judgment were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a university statute is enacted to promote education and research, an amendment that substantially narrows the scope of instruction and dissemination of knowledge so as to frustrate the statutory purpose and impair the right to education is unconstitutional, while a limited regulatory role in the appointment of the Chancellor may be upheld if it does not destroy the institution's core autonomy.

---