Permissible modifications under extended legislation cannot add substantive disclosure duties or alter penalty policy by executive notification.

Section 87 permits only peripheral or insubstantial restrictions or modifications that preserve the policy, essence and substance of the extended Act, so a new duty requiring unaided educational institutions to upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on their website was beyond that power and was struck down as ultra vires. By contrast, the prohibition on charging any additional cost from parents, read with the obligation to disclose the fee structure at the start of the academic year, was treated as a permissible modification and upheld. Enhancing penalty amounts through executive notification was also invalid, because penalty quantum is a matter of legislative policy and could not be altered by such limited executive action.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the requirement that unaided educational institutions upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on their website was a permissible restriction or modification under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966; (ii) whether the prohibition on charging any kind of cost from parents was valid; and (iii) whether the enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 of the Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 could be introduced by executive notification.

Issue (i): whether the requirement that unaided educational institutions upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on their website was a permissible restriction or modification under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.

Analysis: The power under Section 87 permits only such restrictions or modifications as keep the policy, essence and substance of the extended enactment intact and allow only peripheral or insubstantial changes. A new obligation requiring disclosure of income, expenditure account and balance sheet on the website was not part of the principal Act and introduced a substantive regulatory burden rather than a mere adaptation.

Conclusion: The condition was beyond the scope of Section 87, was not a peripheral or insubstantial change, and was struck down as ultra vires.

Issue (ii): whether the prohibition on charging any kind of cost from parents was valid.

Analysis: The prohibition was read with the accompanying obligation to disclose the complete fee structure at the beginning of the academic year. In that context, the stipulation merely ensured that the institution charged only the disclosed fee and did not alter the legislative policy or substance of the extended Act.

Conclusion: The prohibition was held to be a permissible and appropriate modification and was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the enhancement of penalty amounts under Section 14 of the Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 could be introduced by executive notification.

Analysis: The quantum of penalty is a matter of legislative policy. Enhancing the penalty amounts changed the statutory regime in a substantial manner and could not be done through executive action under Section 87, which is confined to restrictions or modifications of a limited character.

Conclusion: The enhancement of penalty amounts was struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part: the website-disclosure condition and the enhanced penalties were invalidated, while the restriction on charging costs from parents was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to extend an enactment with restrictions or modifications authorises only peripheral or insubstantial alterations that preserve the statute's policy, essence and substance, and cannot be used to introduce substantive new obligations or alter legislative policy.

---