LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 03-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 445 : 2024 INSC 751
Khalsa University and Another  
v. 
The State of Punjab and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 10999 of 2024)
03 October 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants 
inter-alia seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for 
quashing โ€œThe Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017โ€ dated 17th 
July 2017. The issues which arises for consideration are: Whether 
an enactment for giving out a differential treatment to a single 
entity is valid in law or not; whether the Impugned Act is liable to 
be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness.
Headnotesโ€ 
Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 โ€“ Whether an enactment 
for giving out a differential treatment to a single entity is 
valid in law or not:
Held: It is a settled position of law that though a legislation 
affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person 
would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable 
classification having nexus with the object to be achieved โ€“ 
There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which 
a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from 
the rest of the group โ€“ Further, if a legislation affecting a single 
person, entity or undertaking is being enacted, there should be 
special circumstances requiring such an enactment โ€“ Such special 
circumstances should be gathered from the material taken into 
consideration by the competent legislature and shall include the 
Parliamentary/Legislative Debates โ€“ Also, wherever this Court 
has upheld the legislation affecting the single entity, institution or 
undertaking, it found that it was done in emergent and extreme 
circumstances preceded by enquiries, parliamentary debates, 
etc. โ€“ It was done when the legislature took into consideration the 
relevant material and found it expedient to do so โ€“ In the instant 
*โ€ƒAuthor
446
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
case, the impugned Act is a single entity legislation repealing the 
2016 Act by which the Khalsa University was established โ€“ The 
Khalsa University has specifically averred that it has been singled 
out by the State Government amongst 16 Universities โ€“ It has also 
been averred that there is absolutely no reason or justification 
whereby the Khalsa University could be ordered to be shut down in 
such a discriminatory manner โ€“ The reply filed by the respondent 
no.1 does not deal with the submissions made by the appellants 
on the ground of discrimination โ€“ No material is placed on record 
as to what was the compelling and emergent situation so as to 
enact a law which could affect the Khalsa University (appellant 
No.1) โ€“ No material is placed on record to show that there were 
any discussions prior to the Impugned Act being passed or as 
to what material was placed and taken into consideration by 
the competent legislatureย  โ€“ Since the Khalsa University had 
specifically pleaded a ground regarding discrimination, it was 
incumbent upon the respondents to have dealt with the said 
challenge โ€“ Therefore, the Impugned Act singled out the Khalsa 
University (appellant No.1) amongst 16 private Universities in the 
State and no reasonable classification has been pointed out to 
discriminate the Khalsa University (appellant No.1) against the 
other private Universities โ€“ The Impugned Act therefore would 
be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
[Paras 48, 53, 58, 59]
Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 โ€“ Constitution of 
Indiaย โ€“ Art.14 โ€“ Whether the Impugned Act (Khalsa University  
(Repeal) Act, 2017) is liable to be struck down on the ground 
of manifest arbitrariness:
Held: The only reasoning given in the Statement of Objects and 
Reasons of the Impugned Act is that the Khalsa College has, over 
a period of time, become a significant icon of Khalsa heritage and 
the University established in 2016 is likely to shadow and damage 
its character and pristine glory โ€“ It is to be noted that the Khalsa 
College which was established in 1892 is not a part of the Khalsa 
University โ€“ During the course of hearing, a specific statement 
has been made by the appellants that the Khalsa College would 
not be affiliated with the Khalsa University โ€“ The maps have been 
placed on record which show the placement of Khalsa College in 
the campus along with the other institutions โ€“ The perusal of the 
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
447
Khalsa Uni

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