TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o postpone an enactment which has already come into force? Whether if the law was passed only ostensibly but was in truth and substance, one for accomplishing an unauthorized object, the court would be entitled to lift the veil and judicially review the case. Whether the State has sought to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly as it was prevented from doing so in view of the judgment of the Division Bench which upheld the validity of the Parent Act 2010? Whether the Amendment Act 2011 is an arbitrary piece of legislation and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the Amendment Act 2011 was merely a pretence to do away with the uniform system of education under the guise of putting on hold the implementation of the Parent Act, which the State was not empowered to do so? Whether if the impugned Amending Act has to be given effect to, it would result in unsettling various issues and the larger interest of children would be jeopardized? - CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6015-6027/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2011 - J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan, JJ. JUDGMENT: 1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e field of elementary education and child development. The State Advisory Council would advise the State Government on implementation of the provisions of the Act 2009 in an effective manner. C. The Cabinet of the State of Tamil Nadu took a decision on 29.8.2009 that it will implement the uniform system of school education in all schools in the State, form a Common Board by integrating the existing four Boards, and will introduce textbooks providing for the uniform syllabus in Standards I and VI in the academic year 2010-11 and in Standards II to V and VII to X in the academic year 2011-12. In order to give effect to the said Cabinet decision, steps were taken on administrative level and thus, the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Ordinance, 2009 was issued on 27.11.2009 which was published in the official Gazette on 30.11.2009. The Ordinance was subsequently converted into the Act 2010 on 1.2.2010. The Act 2010 provided for the State Common Board of School Education (hereinafter called the Board); imposition of penalties for wilful contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder (Section 11); offences by companies in the same regard (Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nents of the curriculum in respect of Classes II to V and VII to X to an Expert Committee for its opinion. The curriculum and syllabus prepared for uniform system of school education as well as the textbooks for Classes II to V and VII to X for uniform system of school education in Government schools and Government aided schools were approved by the Board. G. However, there was a change of State Government following the general elections of the State Assembly, on 16.5.2011. After completing the formalities, the Government amended the Act 2010 by the Amendment Act 2011, by which it substituted Section 3 by a new Section providing that the schools would follow the common syllabus as may be specified by the Board for each subject in Standards I to X from such academic year as may be notified by the Government in the official Gazette. The Government may specify different academic years for different Standards. The amendment also omitted Sections 11, 12 and 14 from the Act 2010 since those Sections had been struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. H. New academic session was to commence on 1.6.2011 and the Amendment Act 2011 came into force on 7.6.2011. A large number o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Act 2009 and the State had to constitute the Board and designate the Academic Authority and the State Advisory Council. In view thereof, it was necessary to bring the Amendment Act 2011. Thus, basically it was in consonance and in conformity with the judgment dated 30.4.2010 which has duly been approved by this Court. The High Court in its earlier judgment itself gave liberty to the State to implement the common syllabus and distribute text books under the Act 2010 from academic year 2011-12 or with any future date after the norms were made known by the State Authorities so far as the students of Standards II to V and VII to X are concerned. Therefore, in view of the same, the High Court committed an error holding that the Amendment Act 2011 tantamounts to repealing the Act 2010. The High Court itself has accepted the settled legal proposition that the question of malafide or colourable exercise of power cannot be alleged against the legislature, but still it recorded the finding that the Amendment Act 2011 was a product of arbitrary exercise of power. The authorities had to ensure compliance with the National Curriculum Framework 2005 (hereinafter called NCF 2005) prepar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the High Court impugned are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri T.R. Andhyarujina, Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Shri R. Viduthalai, Shri Dhruv Mehta, Shri M.N. Krishnamani and Shri Ravi Verma Kumar, Sr. Advocates and Shri Prashant Bhushan and Shri N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates appearing for the respondents have submitted that the Amendment Act is a political fall out due to change of Government. The new Government was sworn in on 16.5.2011. The Cabinet on 22.5.2011 decided not to implement the uniform education system which was purely a political decision as there was no material before the Cabinet on the basis of which it could be decided that implementation of the Act 2010 was not possible. The academic session which had to start on 1.6.2011 was postponed extending the summer vacation upto 15.6.2011 vide order dated 25.5.2011. The decision of the Cabinet was challenged before the High Court by filing writ petitions on 1.6.2011 and during the pendency of the said cases, the Amendment Act 2011 was passed hurriedly, that was a totally arbitrary and unwarranted exercise underlined by sheer political motives. The Amendment Act 2011 was promulgated on 7.6.2011 itself with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amental rights or arbitrary, the repealed provisions would automatically revive. Conferring unfettered powers on the executive, without laying down any criterion or guidelines to enforce the Act 2010, tantamounts to abdication of its legislative powers. Non-availability of choice of multiple text books for a very few schools could not be a ground for scrapping the Act 2010. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In post-Constitutional era, an attempt has been made to create an egalitarian society removing disparity amongst individuals, and in order to achieve that purpose, education is one of the most important and effective means. After independence, there has been an earnest effort to bring education out of commercialism/mercantilism. In the year 1951, the Secondary School Commission was constituted as per the recommendation of Central Advisory Board of Education and an idea was mooted by the Government to prepare textbooks and a common syllabus in education for all students. In 1964-1966, the report on National Education Policy was submitted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) over-ruling its earlier judgment in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), where it has been held that separate education facilities are inherently unequal and thus, violate the doctrine of equality. The propagators of this campaign canvassed that uniform education system would achieve the code of common culture, removal of disparity, depletion of discriminatory values in human relations. It would enhance the virtues and improve the quality of human life, elevate the thoughts which advance our constitutional philosophy of equal society. In future, it may prove to be a basic preparation for uniform civil code as it may help in diminishing opportunities to those who foment fanatic and fissiparous tendencies. In Rohit Singhal Ors. v. Principal, Jawahar N. Vidyalaya Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2088, this Court expressed its great concern regarding education for children observing as under:- Children are not only the future citizens but also the future of the earth. Elders in general, and parents and teachers in particular, owe a responsibility for taking care of the well-being and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he curricular subjects and not for the co-curricular subjects. The schools may choose from multiple text books vis. Government produced text books which are prescribed text books and the Government approved text books in all subjects both curricular and co-curricular. (iii) The schools shall follow the norms as far as they are practicable. There can be no Board examination upto the level of elementary education but the assessment norms may be specified. Norms shall be fixed by the Board. The State may make it clear whether this Board will also be the Academic Authority under the Central Act. However, considering the request of the learned Additional Advocate General just after pronouncing the judgment the Court accepted that Section 3 as modified by the Court would be implemented for Standards I and VI from academic year 2010-11, provided the Board fixed the norms before 15.5.2010. The said judgment has duly been approved by this Court by a speaking order dated 10.9.2010. 10. Decision of the Cabinet dated 22.5.2011, to postpone the enforcement of the Act 2010 was challenged through various writ petitions. Meanwhile, the government issued an Ordinance which was converted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly, the Amending Act has to be held to be arbitrary piece of legislation which does not satisfy the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Emphasis added) 14. The High Court after examining the validity of the Amended Act held: (I) The Committee so constituted may not be justified in submitting the report stating that the entire uniform system of education be scrapped and the text books already provided for be discarded. (II) The Expert Committee has mis-directed itself as it ought to have proceeded primarily to examine the ways and means of implementing the uniform system of education, curiously the Committee, in its final report concluded that no text book can be used for the academic year 2011-12. (III) The Committee members were not of the unanimous opinion that the uniform syllabus and common text books have to be discarded from the current year. Each member has pointed out certain defects and recommended for certain changes and additions. (IV) In the order dated 10.6.2011, the High Court directed the Government to notify the approved text books after conducting the study with a view to comply with the direction issued earlier on 30.4.2010. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All India Manufacturers Organisation Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1846, this Court examined under what circumstances the government should revoke a decision taken by an earlier Government. The Court held that an instrumentality of the State cannot have a case to plead contrary from that of the State and the policy in respect of a particular project adopted by the State Government should not be changed with the change of the government. The Court further held as under:- It is trite law that when one of the contracting parties is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it does not cease to enjoy the character of State and, therefore, it is subjected to all the obligations that State has under the Constitution. When the State's acts of omission or commission are tainted with extreme arbitrariness and with mala fides, it is certainly subject to interference by the Constitutional Courts. (Emphasis added) 18. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed by the Court on its earlier judgments in State of U.P. Anr. v. Johri Mal, AIR 2004 SC 3800; and State of Haryana v. State of Punjab Anr., AIR 2002 SC 685. In the former, this Court held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of competence of the particular legislature to enact a particular law. If the legislature is competent to pass a particular enactment, the motives which impelled it to an act are really irrelevant. On the other hand, if the legislature lacks competence, the question of motive does not arrive at all. Therefore, whether a statute is constitutional or not is, thus, always a question of power of the legislature to enact that Statute. Motive of the legislature while enacting a Statute is inconsequential: Malice or motive is beside the point, and it is not permissible to suggest parliamentary incompetence on the score of mala fides. The legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of having passed a law for an extraneous purpose. This kind of transferred malice is unknown in the field of legislation. [See: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1953 SC 375; R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat Ors. v. Ajit Mills Limited Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2279; K. Nagaraj Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh Anr., AIR 1985 SC 551; Welfare Assocn. A.R.P., Maharashtra Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1266; and State of Kerala Anr. v. Peoples Union for Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is a still born law. (Emphasis added) (See also: Mohd. Shaukat Hussain Khan v. State of A.P. AIR 1974 SC 1480). 25. In Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 123; and Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1019, this Court held that in case a statute violates any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, such statute remains still-born; void; ineffectual and nugatory, without having legal force and effect in view of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The effect of the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional amounts to as if it has never been in existence. Rights cannot be built up under it; contracts which depend upon it for their consideration are void. The unconstitutional act is not the law. It confers no right and imposes no duties. More so, it does not uphold any protection nor create any office. In legal contemplation it remains not operative as it has never been passed. In case the statute had been declared unconstitutional, the effect being just to ignore or disregard. IV. DOCTRINE OF LIFTING THE VEIL: 26. However, in order to test the constitutional validi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance on the principle of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur at omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by shift or contrivance . (See: Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, AIR 1979 SC 381; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1997; and Sant Lal Gupta Ors. v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Ors., JT 2010 (11) SC 273). VII. CONDITIONAL LEGISLATION: 29. As the legislature cannot carry out each and every function by itself, it may be necessary to delegate its power for certain limited purposes in favour of the executive. Delegating such powers itself is a legislative function. Such delegation of power, however, cannot be wide, uncanalised or unguided. The legislature while delegating such power is required to lay down the criteria or standard so as to enable the delegatee to act within the framework of the statute. The principle on which the power of the legislature is to be exercised is required to be disclosed. It is also trite that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. Delegation cannot be extended to repealing or altering in essential particulars of laws which are already in force in the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore came to the conclusion that it was not a case of excessive delegation which may be held to be bad in view of the judgment in Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554, rather it was a case of conditional legislation. 33. In Basant Kumar Sarkar Ors. v. The Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1260, this Court examined the issue of extension of Employees State Insurance Act, i.e. temporal application of employees insurance legislation and held that it was a case of conditional legislation and not of excessive delegation because there was no element of delegation therein at all. The Court held as under: Thus, it is clear that when extending the Act to different establishments, the relevant Government is given the power to constitute a Corporation for the administration of the scheme of Employees State Insurance. The course adopted by modern legislatures in dealing with welfare scheme has uniformly conformed to the same pattern. The legislature evolves a scheme of socio-economic welfare, makes elaborate provisions in respect of it and leaves it to the Government concerned to decide when, how and in what manner the scheme should be introduced. That, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on the ground of hardship but can be done so on the ground of total unreasonableness. The legislation can be questioned as arbitrary and ultra vires under Article 14. However, to declare an Act ultra vires under Article14, the Court must be satisfied in respect of substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself. IX. AMENDING ACT-IF STRUCK DOWN-WHETHER OLD LAW WILL REVIVE: 39. This Court in Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1988 SC 740 explained the distinction between repeal and amendment observing that amendment includes abrogation or deletion of a provision in an existing statute. If the amendment of an existing law is small, the Act prefaces to amend; if it is extensive, it repeals and re-enacts it. 40. In State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal AIR 1996 SC 2181, this Court held that when the statute is amended, the process of substitution of statutory provisions consists of two parts:- (i) the old rule is made to cease to exist; (ii) the new rule is brought into existence in its place. In other words, the substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (See also: Koteswar Vitta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the similar situation, this Court struck down the Amending Act being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further directed as under: We declare the abovesaid provision of the amendment as constitutionally invalid and as a consequence restore the original provisions of the Act which were operating before coming into force of the Amendment Act. (Emphasis added) 45. Thus, the law on the issues stands crystallised that in case the Amending Act is struck down by the court for want of legislative competence or is violative of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it would be un-enforceable in view of the provision under Article 13(2) of the Constitution and in such circumstances the old Act would revive, but not otherwise. This proposition of law is, however, not applicable so far as subordinate legislation is concerned. X. WHETHER LEGISLATURE CAN OVERRULE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: 46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality Ors., AIR 1970 SC 192, examined the issue and held as under: .....When a legislature sets out to validate a tax declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of persons and events at large. However, it cannot set aside an individual decision inter-parties and affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of the State and functioning as an appellate court or tribunal. In the latter case, a similar view had been reiterated observing that the award of the tribunal could not be nullified by an Amendment Act having recourse to the legislative power as it tantamounts to nothing else, but the abuse of this power of legislature. 49. In Madan Mohan Pathak Anr. v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1978 SC 803, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court considered a similar issue and held that the act of legislature cannot annul a final judgment giving effect to rights of any party. A declarative judgment holding an imposition of tax invalid can be superseded by a re- validation statute. But where the factual or legal situation is retrospectively altered by an act of legislature, the judgment stands, unless reversed by an appeal or review. Bringing a legislation in order to nullify the judgment of a competent court would amount to trenching upon the judicial power and no le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hashini Ors. (Supra), this Court held as under: The proposition which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments is that although the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill leading to enactment of the particular Act cannot be made the sole basis for construing the provisions contained therein, the same can be referred to for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs and the mischief sought to be remedied by the statute. The Statement of Objects and Reasons can also be looked into as an external aid for appreciating the true intent of the legislature and/or the object sought to be achieved by enactment of the particular Act or for judging reasonableness of the classification made by such Act. (Emphasis added) 54. Thus, in view of the above, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of any enactment spells out the core reason for which the enactment is brought and it can be looked into for appreciating the true intent of the legislature or to find out the object sought to be achieved by enactment of the particular Act or even for judging the reasonableness of the classifications made by such Act. CASE ON MERITS: 55. The instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viding a level playing field to all sections of society. IV. At this juncture, it is pointed out that the books that have been printed already are substandard and wanting in quality and if followed, would lead to deterioration of academic Standards of school students and therefore the Cabinet has rightly taken a policy decision after thorough deliberation to stall the implementation of the Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 as it suffers from illegality, irrationality and unconstitutionality.... (Emphasis added) On amendment of the writ petitions, another counter affidavit was filed by Ms. D. Sabitha, the same officer, wherein she stated on oath, inter-alia, as under: I. This being so, the Government has taken a decision to stall the implementation of the policy of the previous government that is devoid of any legal sanction and has constituted a committee to formulate an appropriate solution in order to redress the complications created due to the implementation of the illegal policy. II.......In the Cabinet meeting held on 22.5.2011, it was initially decided to do away with the uniform Education system. Since the schools were reopening on 1st June, 2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same could have been removed by issuing a Government order under Section 18 of the Act which conferred all residuary powers on it. The nature of the defect as canvassed by the State counsel is reflected in the pleadings that indicates an undesirable inclusion of certain chapters that do not subserve the purpose of a uniform standard and multicultural educational pattern. The contention appears to be that such material may damagingly divert the mind of the young students towards a motivated attempt of individualistic glorification. In the opinion of the court, if such material does create any adverse impact or is otherwise targeted towards unwanted propaganda without any contribution towards the educational standard sought to be achieved, then such material upon a thorough investigation and deliberation by the Expert Committee could be deleted with the aid of Section 18 of the Act 2010. It appears that the State Government while introducing the Amendment Act 2011 did not appropriately focus attention on the provision of Section 18 quoted hereinabove that are inclusive of all powers that may be required to remove such difficulties. Had the said provision been carefully note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e academic year 2011-2012. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), every school in the State shall - (a) follow the norms fixed by the Board for giving instruction in each subject; (b) follow the norms for conducting examination as may be specified by the Board. 63. After the Amendment Act 2011, Section 3 reads as under: 3. Schools to follow common syllabus - (1) Every school in the State shall follow the common syllabus as may be specified by the Board for each subject in Standards 1 to X from such academic year as may be notified by the Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The Government may specify different academic years for different Standards. (2) Until notification under sub-section (1) is issued, the syllabus and text books for every school in the State shall be as follows: (a) in Standards I and VI, the system as prevailing prior to academic year 2010-11 shall continue; and (b) in Standards II to V and VII to X, the existing system shall continue, (Emphasis added) 64. The legislature in its wisdom had enforced the Act 2010 providing for common syllabus and text books for Standards I and VI from the academic year 2010-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystem. 67. If one crore twenty lacs students are now to revert back to the multiple syllabus with the syllabus and textbooks applicable prior to 2010 after the academic term of 2011-12 has begun, they would be utterly confused and would be put to enormous stress. Students can not be put to so much strain and stress unnecessarily. The entire exercise by the Government is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to students, teachers and parents. The State Government should have acted bearing in mind that destiny of a nation rests with its youths . Personality of a child is developed at the time of basic education during his formative years of life. Their career should not be left in dolorific conditions with uncertainty to such a great extent. The younger generation has to compete in global market. Education is not a consumer service nor the educational institution can be equated with shops, therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institution without prior permission or approval by the authority concerned. Thus, the State Government could by no means be justified in amending the provisions of Section 3 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls organisations, opposing the common education system in the entire State. The writ petitions were dismissed upholding the validity of the Act. However, few provisions, particularly, the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 14 were struck down by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.4.2010. The said judgment of the High Court was duly approved by a speaking order of this Court dated 10.9.2010. Certain directions had been given in the said judgment by the High Court which could have been complied with by issuing executive directions. Moreover, directions issued by the High Court could be complied with even by changing the Schedule as provided in the judgment dated 30.4.2010 itself. (iv) Section 18 of the Act 2010 itself enabled the Government to issue any executive direction to remove any difficulty to enforce the statutory provisions of the Act 2010. The Act 2010 itself provided for an adequate residuary power with the government to remove any difficulty in enforcement of the Act 2010, by issuing an administrative order. (v) Justification pleaded by the State that Amendment Act 2011 was brought to avoid contempt proceedings as the directions issued by the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly in view of her stand taken before the High Court that the Act 2010 was unconstitutional and illegal. (xii) The Secretary, to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, who had been entrusted the responsibility to plead on behalf of the State, herself had approved the textbooks and fixed the prices for those books of Standards VIIIth, IXth and Xth vide G.O. dated 9.5.2011. (xiii) The members of the Expert Committee did not reject the text books and syllabus in toto, however, pointed out certain discrepancies therein and asked for rectification/improvements of the same. (xiv) The High Court as well as this Court upheld the validity of the Act 2010. Thus, it was not permissible for the legislature to annul the effect of the said judgments by the Amendment Act 2011, particularly so far as the Ist and VIth Standards are concerned. The list of approved textbooks had been published and made known to all concerned. Thus, the Act 2010 stood completely implemented so far these Standards were concerned. (xv) The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 2011 clearly stipulated that legislature intended to find out a better system of school education. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom academic year 2011-12. Such pious hope of so many stakeholders could not be betrayed. Rolling back the Act 2010 at this belated stage and withdrawal thereof even for Standard I and VI would be unjust, iniquitous and unfair to all concerned. (xxiii) The Amendment Act 2011, in fact, has the effect of bringing back the effect of Section 14 of the Act 2010 which had been declared ultra vires by the High Court for the reason that the Board could not be given binding directions by the State Government. (xxiv) Even if a very few schools could not exercise their choice of multiple text books, it could not be a ground of scrapping the Act 2010. Steps should have been taken to remove the discrepancy. (xxv) Passing the Act 2011, amounts to nullify the effect of the High Court and this Court's judgments and such an act simply tantamounts to subversive of law. 71. In view of the above, the appeals are devoid of any merit. Facts and circumstances of the case do not present special features warranting any interference by this Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to enforce the High Court judgment impugned herein within a period of 10 days from to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
