Occupied field and private college autonomy limit State control over admissions and fees in professional education

Parliamentary occupation of the field in higher and technical education barred a State law that imposed a parallel single-window admission system and fee-control regime for private professional institutions; the Court held the measure unconstitutional for repugnancy and non-compliance with Article 254. The Court also held that complete State control over admissions and fee fixation extinguished the core autonomy of private unaided educational institutions and was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) or saved by Article 19(6). The enactment was struck down.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State enactment regulating admission through a single-window system and fixing fees in private professional educational institutions was beyond legislative competence because the field was already occupied by Central legislation and regulations under Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. (ii) Whether the provisions taking away the institutions' freedom to admit students and fix a reasonable fee violated the right under Article 19(1)(g) and were not saved by Article 19(6).

Issue (i): Whether the State enactment regulating admission through a single-window system and fixing fees in private professional educational institutions was beyond legislative competence because the field was already occupied by Central legislation and regulations under Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III.

Analysis: The field of higher and technical education was held to be governed by Central enactments and regulations, including the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, and the corresponding council regulations on admissions and fee norms. The impugned State law abolished the existing admission procedure and created a State-controlled admission and fee regime. Applying the settled principles on occupied field and repugnancy, the Court held that once Parliament had occupied the field, the State could not enact a parallel regime trenching upon the same subject. The Court also held that, even on the assumption of some residual power, Article 254 was not complied with.

Conclusion: The State enactment was beyond legislative competence and unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisions taking away the institutions' freedom to admit students and fix a reasonable fee violated the right under Article 19(1)(g) and were not saved by Article 19(6).

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that private unaided educational institutions have a protected right to admit students and to set up a reasonable fee structure, subject only to regulatory measures that preserve standards and prevent maladministration. The impugned law went further and placed admissions and fee fixation under complete governmental control, which the Court treated as an impermissible restriction rather than a reasonable regulatory measure. The Court held that the extent of control imposed by the statute extinguished the core incidents of the right to carry on the educational occupation.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions were held to violate Article 19(1)(g) and were not protected by Article 19(6).

Final Conclusion: The enactment was struck down as invalid, and the writ petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has occupied the field of higher or technical education through valid legislation and regulations, a State law cannot create a parallel admission and fee-control regime that nullifies the central scheme; moreover, restrictions that completely displace the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions to admit students and fix a reasonable fee are not reasonable regulatory measures under Article 19(1)(g).

---