INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Clause (a) of the proviso (requiring upload of income, expenditure account and balance sheet on school websites) and paragraph 8 (enhancing penalties in Section 14) are substantive changes outside the scope of the executive power under Section 87 and are ultra vires and struck down; clause (b) (prohibiting charging any kind of cost from parents) is a permissible, non-substantial modification consistent with the legislative intent of the 2016 Act and is upheld.

Parties
Appellants: INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS.; Respondents: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal (partly Allowed)
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of State Enactments to Union Territory, Scope of 'restrictions or Modifications' Under Section 87, Ultra Vires Doctrine, Regulation of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions, Penalty Enhancement
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 Education Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Delegated Legislation Extension of State Enactments to Union Territory Scope of 'restrictions or Modifications' Under Section 87 Ultra Vires Doctrine +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS.

Appellants

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal (partly Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause (a) of the proviso (requiring upload of income, expenditure, account and balance sheet on school website) is a permissible 'modification' under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 or a substantive change beyond executive competence
  2. 2 Whether clause (b) of the proviso (prohibiting charging any kind of cost from parents) is a permissible peripheral modification
  3. 3 Whether paragraph 8 (enhancement of penalty amounts in Section 14) is a permissible modification under Section 87 or an unconstitutional executive usurpation of legislative policy

Ratio Decidendi

Clause (a) of the proviso (requiring upload of income, expenditure account and balance sheet on school websites) and paragraph 8 (enhancing penalties in Section 14) are substantive changes outside the scope of the executive power under Section 87 and are ultra vires and struck down; clause (b) (prohibiting charging any kind of cost from parents) is a permissible, non-substantial modification consistent with the legislative intent of the 2016 Act and is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Clause (a) of the third proviso inserted by paragraph 6 of the Notification dated 13.04.2018 struck down as ultra vires
  • Paragraph 8 of the Notification (enhancing penalty amounts in Section 14) struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires