UNIVERSITY OF KERALA versus COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS, COLLEGES, KERALA & OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 11-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 800 
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA 
v. 
COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS', COLLEGES, KERALA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2009 · · · 
B 
CM!,\RKANDEY .KAT JU AND A.SOK KU""AR. 
. GANGULY, JJ.] 
CO!'JSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Arlie/es 141~ · 142,' 145, 32 and 226 - Pow,ers of sup€Jrior 
C Courts to appoint Committees and to directimplementatiqri .of 
reports 91suqh}~omrr~ttees-:- £Ject~of1.s~ (o.qoll~ge.s: Urions _:_ 
Appointment 9f L,yngdoh CofTJ.rnittee. by Supre,me Court 7 . By 
interim-orde(_~ated_ ·2'2,9.200·6· Supreme Court. directing 
implementation of report of _the said ·committee till furlher 
orders-:- When mattei"ilsted before Court for,.hearing, the .. two 
D Judge Bencf/ referred ihe matter tc) Constitution Bench to 
consider the questions: ."(1) Whether the Court by an interim 
order dated.22.9.2006 can validly direct implementation ofthe 
Lyngdoh Committee!s Report; (2) Whether the order dated 
22.9.2006_ .. real/y amounts to judicial/egislatlon; (3) Whether 
E under our Constitution the judiciarycan legislate and, if so what 
is the permissible limits of judicial legislation - Will judicial 
legislatioff hot vid(ate. the ptinciple 'ht separation' "Jt pbweis 
broadly ehvisagiM·'by our constitution,' t 4J Whether thil 
judiciarf ca'n 'legislate whiin m· its 'opinion'thed:r is'·a pressing 
F social pi'obferfr of ;public interest or it can only make a 
recommendqtiqn tg;;ftJ~., legislt;JJwe. or: authority concerned.in 
this co(u;.ec(ion,,; (9), Whf)ther Ar:ticle J9. (1 ){c)- and o.the.:r .. 
. ' fundamental righ,t~ :are befl)g, violat~<;J whery .festrir;ticms are 
·· being plac~d. ,by t,he .:f rnptfiment?tipn of ... the: Ly_ngdph 
Committee report wifhP.111 authpfity pf /fiJW,' C;Jn,d ,(6) W~,gf: is-tf"Je 
G scope of Artfqle~;-141.a.(l(i .14? p,f f.h!3,: Cor:1stitytion? pq they 
permit the judiciary .to legislate 1;1ndlor P.~rform functions, of .the 
; 
t 
' 
• 
~ •• 
• 
, • 
, 
• 
• 
' 
, 
I 
c • -
.• 
' , : .f • • ~ • • 
, 
executive wing of the State".,,. Constitut1onalism - Separation 
,\ 
·. ·, 
* 
Order dated 22.9.2006 reproduced along with the instant order at page 820. 
·' ' 
. 
!? 
... -
• 
_: 
H 
800 
··I 
J 
• 
)! 
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS', 801 
COLLEGES, KERALA 
otpowers - Judicial Legislation. 
, 
A 
' Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anothe,-, vs. 
Chander Hass & Another (2008) 1 SCC 683; Common Cause 
vs. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 511; Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. 
· State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549; Asif Hameed vs. State of • 
Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899; Union of India vs. 
B 
PrakashP. Hinduja (2003) 6 SCC 195:AIR 2003 SC 2612; -t 
Sanjay Kumar vs. State of U. P. 2004 All LJ 239; Verareddy 
Kumaraswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2006) 2 SCC 
670:JT(2006) 2 SC 361; Suresh Seth vs. Commr. Indore 
Municipal Corporation (2005) 13 SCC 287: AIR 2006 SC 767; 
C 
and Union of India vs. DeokiNandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp(1) 
SCC 323:AIR 1992 SC 96; N.K. Prasada vs. Govt. of India 
(2004)6 SCC 299: JT 2004 Supp (1) SC 326; Supreme Court 
Employees' Welfare Assn. vs. Union India (1989) 4 SCC 
187:AIR 1990 SC 334; Union of India vs. Assn. for Democratic 
Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 : AIR 2002 SC 2112 and Vishaka 
D 
vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241; Bandhua Mukti 
Morcha vs. Union oflndia (1984) 3 SCC 161; Minerva Mills 
vs. Union of India - (1980) 3 SCC 625, referred to. 
Hinds and others vs. The Queen - (1976) 1 A.E.R 353; 
Duport Steels Limited and Others vs. Sirs and others reported 
E 
in (1980) 1 A.ER. 529; M vs. Home Office and another(1993) 
3 A.E.R. 537, referred to. 
I 
'The Nature of Judicial Process' page 41 by Benjamin 
Cardozo; "Fifty Years of the Supreme Court: Its Grasp and 
Reach" by M.P. Jain; Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence, 
F 
page 1403; and Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 60 pg. 59, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
(2008) 1 sec 683 
referred to 
Para 14 
(2008) 5 sec 511 
referred to 
Para 15 
G 
1955 SC 549 
referred to 
Para 16 
1989 SC 1899 
referred to 
Para 17 
(2003) 6 sec 195 
referred to 
Para120 
2004 All LJ 239 
referred to 
Para 20 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
.._ 
" 
A 
(2006) 2 sec 610 
referred to· 
Para 20 
(2005) 13 sec 2a1 
referred to 
Para 20 
I.. 
1992 Supp(1) SCC 323 referred to 
Para 20 
(2004) & sec 299 
referred to 
Para 21 
.·, 
(1989) 4 sec 18! 
referred to 
Para 21 
B 
(2002) s sec 294 
referred to 
Para 22 
(1997) 6 sec 241 
referred to 
Para 25 
(1976) 1 A.E.R

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