TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman Ghani Khan, Dev Prakash, Pallavi Pratap, Sumit Saurav, Sachin Sharma and Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the writ petition/s is, whether the State of Kerala is competent to promulgate the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance") notified on 20.10.2017, which is intended to nullify judgments and orders of this Court and encroaches upon the power of the judiciary. 2. The State of Kerala has promulgated the impugned Ordinance for regularising the admission of 180 students who were illegally admitted in the Kannur Medical College and Karuna Medical College run by Prestige Educational Trust and Safe Development Alms Trust respectively. The students were admitted to the said medical colleges in the academic year 2016-17. After enquiry, it was found by the Admission Supervisory Committee of the professional colleges (in short "the ASC") that admissions were illegal. The decision was upheld by the High Court of Kerala and by this Court. 3. The background facts are that on 28.4.2016, this Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleges was unsatisfactory and decided to revise the approval of the prospectus and issued a revised admission Schedule for the aforesaid medical colleges whereby the date for submitting online applications was revised and extended till 19.9.2016. 6. After conducting an enquiry, the ASC issued an order dated 15.9.2016 with respect to Kannur Medical College observing that the medical college had not called online applications as directed by the ASC by its order dated 10.9.2016 and directed that the admissions made, if any, shall stand cancelled. 7. The ASC passed another order after holding an enquiry on 15.9.2016 with respect to Karuna Medical College and held that the portal for online was closed on 6.9.2016 and there was a contravention of the directions passed by it in the order dated 10.9.2016 wherein the revised date for submitting online applications was up to 19.9.2016. On 17.9.2016 the ASC passed yet another order addressed to all the medical colleges situated in Kerala State, the directions issued by it were reiterated and it was also directed that the directions be placed on the website of the medical colleges forthwith. On 19.9.2016 the ASC further directed the coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e it by 7.10.2016. 11. On 7.10.2016, Kannur Medical College made a statement before the Kerala High Court that no student turned up before the CEE seeking admission in their college. On 13.10.2016 the Commissioner for Entrance Examination (CEE) submitted its report concluding that the procedure followed by Karuna Medical College was flawed and there were material irregularities committed by it while admitting 30 students. So far as Kannur Medical College was concerned, the representative of the said college appeared before the CEE on 7.10.2016 at about 11.30 a.m. and left by 12.10 p.m. after furnishing the records. No explanation or clarification was furnished by the representatives of the medical college, and the conduct was noted by the CEE. The person who claimed to be the representative of the college left immediately when he was asked to furnish the letter of authorisation from the college authorities. 12. The Kerala High Court vide judgment and final order dated 28.10.2016 cancelled as many as 150 admissions made by Kannur Medical College and 30 admissions made by Karuna Medical College through 'spot counselling'. The High Court of Kerala further directed the AS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emic session i.e. 2017-18 and the corresponding number of seats shall be reduced for the said session for admissions. Review petitions were also filed which were dismissed by this Court on 2.5.2017. 15. After the aforesaid controversy was set at rest by the judgment of this Court, the State Government notified the impugned Ordinance on 20.10.2017 whereby admission of the students who were illegally admitted in the MBBS course in the year 2016-17 in the said medical colleges, were sought to be regularised. The Ordinance promulgated by the Government of Kerala is extracted hereunder: THE KERALA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES (REGULARISATION OF ADMISSION IN MEDICAL COLLEGES) ORDINANCE, 2017) Promulgated by the Governor of Kerala in the Sixty-eighth Year of the Republic of India AN ORDINANCE to provide for regularisation of admission of students in certain medical colleges in the State during the academic year 2016-17 Preamble-WHEREAS, the admission of certain students in the discipline of medicine for the academic year 2016-17 was cancelled by the Admission Supervisory Committee of the State for non-compliance of its orders by certain managements; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admitted candidates as specified in Section 2 to the discipline of medicine in any medical college and their admission was cancelled, may, within fifteen days from the date of commencement of this Ordinance, apply for regularisation of such admission. (2) Every application for regularisation of admission under this Ordinance shall be submitted to the Government through the University concerned and the University shall, within seven days of receipt of such application, forward the same to the Government with a report containing its remarks on the following matters, namely: (i) whether the student who got admission is qualified and is eligible as per the rank list prepared on the basis of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, for admission in the discipline of medicine as per laws and orders in force applicable for the academic year 2016-17; (ii) whether the students as mentioned in the application has duly attended the course during the academic year 2016-17; (iii) whether the student is otherwise eligible to continue the course. (3) An officer not below the rank of a Secretary to Government, as may be authorised by the Government b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) Where the Government sanctions an application for regularisation of admission under this Ordinance, the management of such medical college shall be liable to pay a regularisation fee of three lakh rupees per student for such regularisation: Provided that where any management collects such fee from any student, such management shall be liable to pay a fine of six lakh rupees per student. (2) The competent authority Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 shall be competent to impose the fee as provided in Sub-section (1) and it shall be specified in the order issued Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. Date 20.10.2017 GOVERNOR 16. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the MCI, urged that the Ordinance is ultra vires of the powers of the State Government and is contrary to the various Constitution Bench decisions of this Court which he has relied upon. He has further submitted that the judgment has been nullified by the Ordinance. It is not that there was any lacunae or flaw in the laws which has been removed. There is an entrenchment by way of Ordinance upon the power of judicial review of the court. This Court has adjudicated upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of students during the academic year 2016-17 which were set aside by the ASC, the High Court and by this Court to benefit only two colleges and students in question. It is also stated in it that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala is not in session and the Governor of Kerala is satisfied, the circumstances render it necessary for him to take immediate action. In exercise of the power conferred under Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Kerala is pleased to promulgate the impugned Ordinance. 19. It is provided in Clause 2 of the Ordinance that notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-exploitative Fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 or in any judgment, decree, order or any proceeding of any court or the Admission Supervisory Committee or any other authority or in any agreement or instrument made under any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Government to regularise the admission of candidates who were qualified for admission in the discip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act of nullifying judgment and is violative of judicial powers which vested in the judiciary. It was not open for the State Government to nullify the judgment/orders passed by the Kerala High Court or by this Court. It was not a case of removal of a defect in existing law. Various Constitution Bench decisions of this Court have settled the principles of law governing the field. It passes comprehension how the State Government has promulgated the Ordinance in question. 22. In Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Anr. 1970 (1) SCC 509, a Constitution Bench of this Court has observed that it is not open to legislation to render a judgment ineffective. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the legislature to say that the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court. This Court has observed thus: 10. The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e water of, or in any inter-State river or river valleys has been vested in the Tribunal appointed Under Section 4 of the said Act. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the question of grant of interim relief falls outside the submission that the question of grant of interim relief falls outside the purview of the said provisions and can be agitated Under Article 131 of the Constitution. Hence any executive order or a legislative enactment of a State which interferes with the adjudicatory process and adjudication by such Tribunal is an interference with the judicial power of the State. In view of the fact that the Ordinance in question seeks directly to nullify the order of the Tribunal passed on June 25, 1991, it impinges upon the judicial power of the State and is, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution. 78. Further, admittedly, the effect of the Ordinance is to affect the flow of the waters of the river Cauvery into the territory of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry which are the lower riparian States. The Ordinance has, therefore, an extra-territorial operation. Hence the Ordinance is on that account beyond the legislative competence of the State and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., without drawing formal lines between the three organs-legislature, executive, and judiciary. In that sense, even in the absence of express provision for separation of powers, the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary is not different from the Constitutions of the countries which contain express provision for separation of powers. 126.2 Independence of courts from the executive and legislature is fundamental to the Rule of law and one of the basic tenets of Indian Constitution. Separation of judicial power is a significant constitutional principle under the Constitution of India. 126.3 Separation of powers between three organs - the legislature, executive, and judiciary - is also nothing but a consequence of principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, breach of separation of judicial power may amount to negation of equality Under Article 14. Stated thus, a legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of the separation of powers since such breach is negation of equality Under Article 14 of the Constitution. 126.4 The superior judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court) is emp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mental to the Rule of law. A legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of separation of judicial power since such breach is negation of equality Under Article 14. Law can be declared void if it is found to have transgressed the constitutional limitations. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can remove the defects of the law pointed out by the court or on coming to know of it aliunde; otherwise, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in such altered circumstances. The legislature can make a validating law. Making validation as such, it removes the defect which the court finds in the existing law. There cannot be an attempt to interfere with the judicial process, and such law may be invalidated. The questions to be examined are: whether the legislation targeted at the decided case, what are the terms of law; the issues with which it deals and the nature of the judgment that has attained finality? If law interferes with the judicial functions on the aforesaid tests laid down in para 126.7, the Court ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld rely upon the relevant provisions of the Act which were given retrospective effect by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act for whatever such reliance was worth. But when such a decision had become final as in the present case when the High Court clearly directed Respondent-State to give to the Petitioners concerned deemed dates of promotions if they were otherwise found fit and in that eventuality to give all benefits consequential thereon including financial benefits, the State could not invoke its legislative power to displace such a judgment. Once this decision had become final and the State of Karnataka had not thought it fit to challenge it before this Court presumably because in identical other matters this Court had upheld other decisions of the Karnataka High Court taking the same view, it passes one's comprehension how the legislative power can be pressed in service to undo the binding effects of such mandamus. It is also pertinent to note that not only Sub-section (2) of Section 11 seeks to bypass and override the binding effect of the judgments but also seeks to empower the State to review such judgments and orders and pass fresh orders in accordance with prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision was arrived at. It is in this limited sphere, the legislature may alter the very basis of an earlier decision given by the court. It cannot directly annul that final judgment by a subsequent legislation. If its purpose is to annul a final judgment, such act of legislature must be declared to be unconstitutional. The Court has observed: 13. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of this Court that the legislature cannot directly annul a judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in "making" law [see: Article 245 of the Constitution] and not in "declaring" what the law shall be [see: Article 141 of the Constitution]. If the legislature were at liberty to annul judgments of courts, the ghost of bills of attainder will revisit us to enable legislatures to pass legislative judgments on matters which are inter-parties. Interestingly, in England, the last such bill of attainder passing a legislative judgment against a man called Fenwick was passed as far back as in 1696. A century later, the US Constitution expressly outlawed bills of attainder [see: Article 1 Section 9]. 14. It is for this reason that our Constitution permits a legislature to make....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in some of its parts seeks to amend the original Act from a date anterior to this date. In other words, the legislature of one of the States seeks to amend a law passed by the composite State. This argument entirely misunderstands the position of the original Act after the reorganisation. That Act applied now as an independent Act to each of the areas and is subject to the legislative competence of the legislature in that area. The Act has been amended in the new States in relation to the area of that State and it is inconceivable that this could not be within the competence. If the argument were accepted then the Act would remain unamendable unless the composite State came into existence once more. The scheme of the States Reorganization Acts makes the laws applicable to the new areas until superseded, amended or altered by the appropriate legislature in the new States. This is what the legislature has done and there is nothing that can be said against such amendment. The aforesaid passage makes it clear as crystal that after the legislature came into existence, it has the competence to enact any law retrospectively or prospectively within the constitutional parameters. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions) Act, 1971 which was promulgated in the year 1971 the Custodian being appointed by the Central Government took over the management of Coking Coal Mines and the said mines remained under the management of the Central Government through the custodian during the period from 17.10.1971 to 30.04.1972. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 came into force w.e.f. 1.5.1972, and the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to Coking Coal Mines stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The provisions of the said Act were challenged before this Court in the case of Tara Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 179 and the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the said Act. The writ Petitioner before the High Court making a grievance that the Custodian had debited the expenses for raising the coal while the Coking Coal Mine was under the Management of the Custodian but had not credited the price for the quantity of the coal raised, which was lying in stock on the date prior to the date the said Coal Mine vested under the Central Government. The High Court allowed the writ petition a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be emphasised in view of series of judgments of this Court. Hence reading Sub-section (2) of Section 10 along with Section 19, it has to be held that Respondents are not required to take into account the stock of coke lying on the date prior to the appointed day, for the purpose of accounting during the period when the mine in question was under the management of the Central Government, because it shall be deemed that the compensation awarded to the Petitioner included the price for such coal lying in stock on the date prior to the appointed day. Neither any compensation is to be paid for such stock of coal nor the price thereof is to be taken into account for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Being of this view, the Court dismissed the writ petition. 29. In State of H.P. v. Narain Singh (2009) 13 SCC 165 while dealing with the validation of statute the Court ruled that: 26. It is therefore clear where there is a competent legislative provision which retrospectively removes the substratum of foundation of a judgment, the said exercise is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this manner, the earlier decision of the court becomes non-existent and unenforceable for interpretation of the new legislation. No doubt, the new legislation can be tested and challenged on its own merits and on the question whether the legislature possesses the competence to legislate on the subject matter in question, but not on the ground of over-reach or colourable legislation. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition that the legislature has the power to retrospectively amend the laws and thereby remove the causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity on which judgment is based, and that would not be an encroachment upon judicial power when the legislature does not directly overrule or reverse a judicial dictum. 28. Reliance has also been placed by the Respondents on Goa Foundation and Anr. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 602 wherein the Court has discussed the matter thus: 24. The principles on which first question would require to be answered are not in doubt. The power to invalidate a legislative or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....current List, namely, Entry No. 42 of List III (Acquisition and Requisition of Property) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court has re-emphasised that a judicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act. However, the legislature shall be competent to pass an amending or a validating Act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court by amending the law. Thus, once the provisions in Clause 4(viii) were removed, the basis of the earlier judgment stood extinguished. 29. In Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 499, a question arose whether under the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002, Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 were unconstitutional. The contention was raised that the impugned Act nullifies the judgment of the Court. The Court has observed: 15. It is well settled that a Statute can be invalidated or held unconstitutional on limited grounds viz., on the ground of the incompetence of the Legislature which enacts it and, on the ground, that it breaches or violates any of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that it seeks to nullify the judgment of this Court in the earlier proceedings. The liability of the State which accrued or arose from the notifications referred to therein was sought to be extinguished. It was held that it was not to undo the judgment. The legislature was held to be competent to remove the basis. 30. In Tika Ram and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 689, this Court considered the provisions of Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment & Validation Act, 1991, in particular Sections 2 and 3 thereof adding proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and held the same to be constitutional. The contention that the U.P. Amendment Act merely sought to overrule judgments in Kashmir Singh's case AIR 1987 All. 113 or State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam (1989) 1 SCC 591 and did not remove the basis or foundation thereof and was, therefore, ultra vires Articles 245 and 246 was rejected. The question arose regarding the constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Amending) Act. Notification Under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) was issued on 4.12.1984 which was published in the Gazette on 8.12.1984. Declaration Under Section 6 was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y exercise on the constituent power to suitably amend the law and to validate the actions which have been declared to be invalid. 69. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan and Ors. reported in 2003 (5) SCC 298. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on paragraphs 14 to 16. In our opinion, paragraph 14 was completely against the Appellants wherein the State Legislature's power to make retrospective legislation and thereby validating the prior executive and legislative acts retrospectively is recognized. Of course, the same has to be done only after curing the defects that led to the invalidation. We respectfully agree with the propositions laid down in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 thereof. In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality reported in 1969 (2) SCC 283, which is referred to in paragraph 16 of the decision, it is stated that: the Legislature may follow any one method or all of them and while it does so, it may neutralize the effect of earlier decision of the Court which becomes ineffective after the change of the law. It is further stated therein that the validity of the validating law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the ranking of candidates in the rank list of NEET, 2016, on the basis of the inter-se merit among the candidates, who have applied to the respective colleges. (ii) All the colleges agree that the applications for admission are received only through online and that, the said process provides transparency with regard to the merit as well as the identities of the applicants. Such applications shall, therefore, be uploaded for the scrutiny of the Admission Supervisory Committee also immediately on the expiry of the last date for submission of applications. (iii) Since the counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee has voiced a complaint that some of the colleges have not obtained approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee, for their Prospectus, the admission process shall be proceeded with only on the basis of a Prospectus, for which approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee has been obtained. (iv) The Admission Supervisory committee is directed to either approve or disapprove the Prospectus, submitted to them for approval, within three days of such submission. 15. It is relevant that against the interim order of the K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be invalid not only by the High Court of Kerala but by this Court after this Court had dealt with the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the ASC after hearing the matter for several days and the Court had passed a reasoned order. While dismissing/disposing of the matters, this Court directed the 30 students who were illegally deprived of the admission, to be admitted in the next academic session 2017-18. It was clearly not a dismissal of the case in limine but a reasoned order. In the writ petitions filed by the colleges and Ors. the validity and legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 was questioned. However, this Court has upheld the same. We also note that voluminous records were filed in this Court by both the medical colleges. The students were also heard when the decision was rendered. Thereafter also several petitions were filed which were dismissed by this Court. Thus, when this Court has upheld the order dated 14.11.2016 on the ground of illegality and irregularities and not following the due procedure, such admissions could not have been regularised at all. In case such a power of covering up illegal action is given to the State Government in individual cases of two college....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex court of the country and so on. The expression often employed by this Court while disposing of such petitions are - "heard and dismissed", "dismissed", "dismissed as barred by time" and so on. Maybe that at the admission stage itself the opposite party appears on caveat or on notice and offers contest to the maintainability of the petition. The Court may apply its mind to the merit worthiness of the Petitioner's prayer seeking leave to file an appeal and having formed an opinion may say "dismissed on merits". Such an order may be passed even ex-parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition. Even if the merits have been gone into, they are the merits of the special leave petition only. In our opinion, neither doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution is attracted to such an order. Grounds entitling exercise of review jurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other statutory provision or al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when the leave to appeal is granted and special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can, therefore, be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case, it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a declaration of law by this Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution; secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by this Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority. 36. When we read the order passed by this Court, all the parties have filed the pleadings while the order was passed by this Court. Counter affidavits, rejoinder and various other applications for taking on record the documents and plethora of documents were submitted before this Court and it was argued for several days at length. This Court has heard the matter and thereafter has expressed the opinion and recording finding as to the legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 for the first time as the order was not before High Court, vide the order passed on 22.3.2017 observing that: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere in Order dated 14.11.2016. As 30 students have been found by ASC, in the case of Karuna Medical College, who have been illegally deprived of their admission in spite of being meritorious, we deem it proper to issue dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has now been removed by the State legislature from the existing law. In fact, what was the judgment of the court, has been attempted to be nullified. It is nothing but an attempt to nullify the judgment which the legislature cannot do, as we have a well-defined field of separation of powers of the judiciary, legislature and the executive. 38. The decision in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120 has been referred to by the Respondents in which the Court considered the question of the need for common entrance examination for admission to postgraduate medical courses in a State and observed that common entrance examination provides unique criteria for judging the merits of all candidates who come from different universities. The common entrance test alone will balance the competing equities of having competent students for specialised education. This Court has made the following observations: 28. This argument ignores the reasons underlying the need for a common entrance examination for post-graduate medical courses in a State. There may be several Universities in a State which conduct M.B.B.S. courses. The courses of study may not be....