STATE OF A.P. versus K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY AND ORS

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 832 · Decided: 10-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY AND ORS 
MARCH 10, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 246 and Entry 66 of List I and 
Entry 25 of List Ill of VII Schedule-Central Government evolving National 
C Education Po/icy-Recommendations made for constituting State Council of 
Higher Education-UGC formulating guidelines-Enactment of 1986 Act-
Act struck down as ultra vires the Constitution as being not within the 
competence of legislature having regard to 1956 Act-Review of guide/ines-
Subsequent enactment of 1988 Act-Constitutional validity qf-Held, provisions 
of 1988 Act show that State Act is an aid of Parliamentary Act and does not 
D encroach upon the legislation enacted by the Parliament, thus a valid piece 
'Jf legislation-Pith and substance doctrine applicable-Andhra Pradesh 
Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986-University Grants 
Commission Act, 1956-Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education 
Act, 1988 
E 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of pith and substance and doctrir.e of co/ourable legislation-
App/icability of 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 246-Legis/ative entries-
F Interpretation of-Discussed 
Central Government evolved a National Education Policy for 
creating a State Level Planning for coordination of higher education 
through _Councils of Higher Education. University Grants Commission 
constituted a Committee and formulated guidelines for setting up the 
G Councils. Thereafter, Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher 
Education Act, 1986 was passed but this Court in Osmania University 
Teachers Association case struck down the Act as unconstitutional on the 
ground of lack of legislative competence having regard to the 
parliamentary Act-University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Commission 
H then reviewed the guidelines and filled the gaps. Consequently, Andhra 
832 
STA TE v. K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY 
833 
Pradesh State Council of Higher Educa'tion Act, 1988 was enacted. A 
Respondent-teacher filed a writ petition challenging the vires of the Act. 
High Court held that as the State Government lacked the requisite 
legislative competence, the Act was ultra vires the Constitution. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I.I. A bare comparison of the provisions of the Andhra 
Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988 with the provisions 
of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 
would clearly demonstrate that the powers and functions of the Council 
stand curtailed in so far as they are not only to function in accordance 
with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission but its 
~uty is to assist the Commission in respect of determination and 
maintenance of standards and suggest remedial action of Higher Education 
B 
c 
in the State. In exercise of the power conferred upon it under the 1988 
Act, the Council can now only forward the programmes of Universities D 
and colleges in the State to the University Grants Commission along with 
its comments and recommendations which necessarily would be subject 
to the latter's acceptance. Even an Annual Report prepared by the Council 
although is required to be forwarded to the Government which in turn is 
enjoined with a duty to place before the Legislative Assembly of the State, 
but a further requirement has been provided that a copy thereof shall also E 
be sent to the University Grants Commission. Evidently, the Commission 
on receipt of a copy of the report may give its own suggestions for their 
implementation by the Council. The submission that the Council also 
derives its power to coordinate and determine the standards of institutions 
of higher education or research and technical institutions including p 
planning and coordination to prepare consolidated programmes in the 
sphere of higher education in the State keeping in view the overall 
priorities and perspectives of higher education is not correct. The principal 
duties and functions of the Council is to assist the UGC in respect of 
determination and maintenance of standards and suggest remedial action; 
to evolve the developmental programmes of Universities and Colleges in G 
the State to the UGC along with its comments and recommendations to 
monitor the progress of implementation of such developmental 
programmes; to promote cooperation and coordination of educational 
institutions among themselves and to explore the scope for inter

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