IN RE THE KERALA EDUCATION BILL, 1957. REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA versus -

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 22-05-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
995 
We ought to add that in our calq,ulations we have not 
I959 
taken into account the Bhupendra Factory because 
The Associated,: 
the relevant material for working out the figures in 
Cement 
regard to this factory is not adequate or satisfactory. companies Ltd. 
However from such material as is available it appears 
v. 
that if the profits made by the said factory are 
Its Workmen 
included in the calculations and rehabilitation required 
-
by it is worked out, it would not materially affeet the Gajendragadkar f. 
figure of rehabilitation amount determined by us. 
The result is that there is no available surplus from 
which the respondents can claim any bonus for the 
relevant year. It is true that the appellant has 
already paid the respondents 20·65 lakhs as bonus for 
the relevant year, and it is likely that it may continue 
to do so in future; but that is a matter which is not 
governed by the formula. 
In view of the fact that the working of the formula 
leaves no available surplus the appeal must be allowed 
and the award made by the tribunal set aside. Since 
the appellant had come to this Court for the decision 
--o""f the larger and more important question about the 
revision of the formula, we would direct that there 
should be no order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
IN RE THE KERALA EDUCATION BILL, 1957. 
REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143(1) OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 
(S. R .. DAS c. J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AIYAR, 
B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, s. K. DhS and J. L. 
KAPUR JJ.) 
President's Reference-Kerala Education Bill, r957-Constitu-
tional validity-Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, scope of 
-Cultural and educational rights of minorities-Constitution of 
India, Arts. r43(I), I4, 29, 30 and 226. 
• 
• 
This was a reference under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution 
made by the Presid,ent of -India for obtaining the opinion of the 
-
- . 
May :n. 
• 
• 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
r958 
Court upon certain questions relating to the constitutional vali-
dity of some of the prov~ions of the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 
In re The Kera/a which had been passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly but 
Education Bill, 
was reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the Presi-
1957 
dent. 
The Bill, as its title and preamble indicated, had for its 
object the better organisation and development of the educa-
tional service throughout the State, presumably, in implementa-
tion of the provisions of Art. 45 of the Constitution and conferred 
wide powers of control on the State Government in respect of 
both aided and recognised institutions. Of the four questions 
referred to this Court, the first and third impugned cl. 3(5) read 
with cl. 36 and cl. 15 of the Bill as being discriminatory under 
Art. 14, the second impugned els. 3(5), 8(3) and els. 9 to 13 of 
the Bill as being violative of minority rights guaranteed by Art. 
30(1) and the fourth, cl. 33 of the Bill, as offending Art. 226 of 
the Constitution. Clause.3(5) of the Bill made the recognition 
of new schools subject to the other provisions of the Bill and the 
rules framed by the Government under cl. (36), cl. (15) authorised 
the Government to acquire any category of schools, cl. 8(3) made 
it obligatory on all aided schools to hand over the fees to the 
Government, els. 9 to 13 made provisions for the regulation and 
management of the schools, payment of salary to the teachers 
and the terms and conditions of their appointment and cl. (33) 
forbade the granting of temporary injunctions and interim orders 
in restraint of proceedings under the Act. 
This Court took t1-
view that since cl. 3(5) attracted the other provisions of the Bill, 
in case anyone of them was found to be unconstitutional, cl. 3(5) 
itself could not escape censure. 
Held (per Das C. J .. Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam, 
S. K. Das and J. L. Kapur JJ.), that although Art. 143(1) of the 
Constitution, which virtually reproduced the provisions of 
s. zr3(r) of the Government of India Act, 1935, gave this Court 
the discretion, where it thought fit, to decline to express any 
opinion on the questions referred to it, the objection that such 
questions related, not to a statute brought into force but, to the 
validity of a Bill that was yet to be enacted, could be no ground 
for declining to entertain the reference. 
• 
Article 143(1) of the Constitution had for its object the 
removal of the doubts of the President and was in n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.