Constitution of India:
Articles 14, 50 and 213 (1) – Principle of ‘Separation of Powers’ – Admission of 180 students to MBBS course were quashed by Admission Supervisory Committee – The order was affirmed by High Court as well as Supreme Court – State Government thereafter notified Ordinance whereby it sought to regularise the admission of those 180 students – Writ petition challenging the Ordinance on the ground that the Ordinance amounted to nullifying the judgments/orders of the Court – Held: The impugned Ordinance is clear entrenchment upon the field of judicial review which is reserved for judiciary – Provisions in the Ordinance were in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under Art. 50 – Ordinance is not only impermissible and beyond legislative competence of the State, it also had the effect of perpetuating illegality and arbitrariness committed by the College in question in not following the mandate of law laid down by the Court – Independence of judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law – A legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of separation of judicial power since such breach is negation of equality provided u/Art. 14 – There cannot be an attempt to interfere with the judicial process – Law which interferes with the judicial process may be invalidated – The Ordinance is ultra vires and entrenchment upon the field earmarked for judiciary, as it sought to nullify judgments of the Court.
Art. 141 – Judgment – Binding effect of – Held: If an Order refusing to grant leave to appeal is by speaking order, it is a declaration of law within the meaning of Art. 141 – Whatever is stated in the order, other than law, are the findings of the Court which would bind the parties and also the Court, Tribunal or Authority – Precedent.
Art. 142 – Power under – Scope of – Held: Power u/Art. 142 cannot be exercised by the court to nullify its own judgment and to perpetuate illegality.
Allowing the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of the Kerala Processional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinances, 2017, makes it clear that the same aims at regularisation of admissions of students during the academic year 2016-17 which were set aside by the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC), the High Court and by this Court to benefit only two colleges and students in question. [Para 18] [223-E-F]
1.2 What has been done by the impugned Ordinance by the State Government is clearly entrenching upon the field of judicial review and it was obviously misadventure resorted to. It was not at all permissible to the State Government to promulgate the Ordinance/legislate in the matter. Not only the judgment of the court is nullified and the arbitrariness committed in admissions was 17 glaring, and the decision of the High Court which was affirmed by this Court with respect to applications to be entertained if they were online applications has been undone. It was clearly an act of nullifying judgment and is violative of judicial powers which vested in the judiciary. It was not open for the State Government to nullify the judgment/orders passed by the High Court or by this Court. It was not a case of removal of a defect in existing law. Various Constitution Bench decisions of this Court have settled the principles of law governing the field. It passes comprehension how the State Government has promulgated the Ordinance in question. [Para 21] [229-G-H; 230-A-C]
1.3 Independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law. A legislation can be invalidated on the basis of breach of separation of judicial power since such breach is negation of equality under Article 14. Law can be declared void if it is found to have transgressed the constitutional limitations. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can remove the defects of the law pointed out by the court or on coming to know of it aliunde; otherwise, a court’s decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in such altered circumstances. The legislature can make a validating law. Making validation as such, it removes the defect which the court finds in the existing law. There cannot be an attempt to interfere with the judicial process, and such law may be invalidated. [Para 24] [234-F-H; 235-A-B]
1.4 The impugned Ordinance indicates that it is a blatant attempt of regularisation of admissions made which were declared to be invalid not only by the High Court but by this Court after this Court had dealt with the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the ASC after hearing the matter for several days and the Court had passed a reasoned order. While dismissing/disposing of the matters, this Court directed the 30 students who were illegally deprived of the admission, to be admitted in the next academic session 2017-18. It was clearly not a dismissal of the case in limine but a reasoned order. In the writ petitions filed by the colleges and others, the validity and legality of the order dated 14.11.2016 was questioned. However, this Court has upheld the same. Voluminous records were filed in this Court by both the medical colleges. The students were also heard when the decision was rendered. Thereafter also several petitions were filed which were dismissed by this Court. Thus, when this Court has upheld the order dated 14.11.2016 on the ground of illegality and irregularities and not following the due procedure, such admissions could not have been regularised at all. The State Government has exceeded its powers and has entrenched upon the field reserved for the judiciary. It could not have nullified the judgment. The online procedure was laid down by the judgment. [Para 33] [251-G-H; 252-A-D]
1.5 What the State Government has done by way of impugned Ordinance is not only impermissible and beyond legislative competence it also has the effect of perpetuating illegality and arbitrariness committed by the colleges in question by not following the mandate of law laid down by the High Court as affirmed by this Court. An effort has been made to cover up the arbitrariness and illegality in an illegal and impermissible manner for which the State Government had no competence. The provisions made in the Ordinance are otherwise also quite illegal and arbitrary besides in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under Article 50 of the Constitution of India. [Para 34] [252-F-H]
Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Anr. (1970) 1 SCC 509 : [1970] 3 SCR 745 ; Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 96 (II) : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR
497 ; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 696 : [2014] 12 SCR 875 – followed.
S.R. Bhagwat and Ors. v. State of Mysore (1995) 6 SCC
16 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 545 ; S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 400 : [2015] 3 SCR
287 – relied on.
Belgaum Gardeners Cooperative Production Supply and Sale Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
(1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 96 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 497; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 696 : [2014] 12 SCR 875 Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 283 : [2016] 7 SCR 689 ; Goa Foundation & Anr. v. State of Goa & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 602 : [2016]
1 SCR 1025 ; Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. v. State of Goa & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 499 : [2010] 5 SCR 970 ; Tika Ram & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC
689 : [2009] 14 SCR 905 – referred to.
2.1 Dismissal of a case by Supreme Court would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by this Court. If an order refusing to grant leave to appeal by a speaking order gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications; firstly the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by this Court within the meaning of Article
141 of the Constitution; secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by this Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court,Tribunal or Authority. [Para 35] [256-B-D]
2.2 In the present case, all the parties have filed the pleadings while the order was passed by this Court. Counter affidavits, rejoinder and various other applications for taking on record the documents and plethora of documents were submitted before this Court and it was argued for several days at length. This Court has heard the matter and thereafter has expressed the opinion and recording finding as to the legality of the order dated 14.11.2016. The SLPs against the order passed by the High Court were also dismissed and this Court had directed that 30 students be admitted in the next session. Independent directions were issued which were not ordered by the High Court. This Court directed that they are to be admitted to the academic session 2017-18. Thus, it is not correct to contend that it was not a decision on merits by this Court. [Para 36] [256-D-E; 257-A-B]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249 ; Anitta Job & Ors. v. The State of Kerala 2018 (6) SCALE 174 – held inapplicable
Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000)
6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – referred to.
3. In the present case, in view of the previous verdicts, power u/Art. 142 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and apart from that when the judgments have attained finality, they are binding on all concerned including this Court. Power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to nullify its own judgment and to perpetuate illegality. [Para 39] [259-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.