In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has struck down “The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017,” ruling that the legislation was discriminatory and lacked reasonable classification, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivered this significant judgment in Khalsa University and Another v. The State of Punjab and Another.
Case Background
Khalsa University was established in 2016 by the Khalsa College Charitable Society, Amritsar, under the “Khalsa University Act, 2016,” as part of Punjab’s Private Universities Policy, 2010. It was a private, self-financed university, and in its first academic session, 215 students were enrolled across 26 programs. However, the university’s existence was short-lived as political shifts in the state saw the introduction and passing of “The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017,” leading to its closure.
The appellants, Khalsa University and its founder Khalsa College Charitable Society, challenged the repeal, contending that the legislation was arbitrary and targeted them unfairly. They argued that the repeal violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as Khalsa University was the only institution singled out among the 16 private universities established under the 2010 policy.
Legal Issues and Arguments
Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14:
Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the appellants, argued that the Repeal Act was arbitrary, mala fide, and discriminatory. He highlighted that while several universities were established under the same 2010 policy, only Khalsa University was targeted for closure. Patwalia pointed out that the repeal seemed politically motivated, driven by Captain Amarinder Singh, who had publicly opposed Khalsa University while in opposition and moved swiftly to repeal it after becoming Chief Minister in 2017.
Patwalia further argued that the justification provided by the state for the repeal—to protect the heritage character of Khalsa College—was factually incorrect. Khalsa University was distinct from Khalsa College, and its existence did not undermine the latter’s heritage or prestige.
Defence by the State of Punjab:
Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate General for Punjab, defended the repeal, arguing that the legislation was necessary to preserve the historical and cultural significance of Khalsa College. Farasat asserted that Khalsa College had gained iconic status over its century-long existence and that the creation of a university with the same name could overshadow its heritage and confuse the public.
Farasat emphasized that the state’s legislative actions were presumed valid, and it was within the state’s powers to take such decisions to safeguard public interest. He argued that the classification based on the unique heritage status of Khalsa College justified the closure of Khalsa University.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, rejected the state’s arguments, stating that the Repeal Act failed to meet the constitutional standard for reasonable classification. The bench found that the classification made by the Punjab government was arbitrary and lacked any valid basis, as it unfairly singled out Khalsa University without affecting other institutions established under the same policy.
Justice B.R. Gavai, delivering the opinion of the court, observed:
“For legislation to target a single entity, the classification must be intelligible and connected to the object sought to be achieved. The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act fails on both counts. There was no reasonable nexus between the repeal and the alleged need to protect Khalsa College’s heritage.”
The court further stated that the state’s concerns regarding the heritage status of Khalsa College were unfounded. Khalsa University operated independently of Khalsa College, and there was no evidence to suggest that its existence harmed or diminished the historical significance of Khalsa College.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan concurred with Justice Gavai’s observations and emphasized the constitutional principle of equality, stating:
“Legislation must treat similarly situated entities alike unless there is a reasonable, intelligible differentia that justifies differential treatment. In this case, no such justification was provided for singling out Khalsa University.”
Key Observations
– Targeting a Single Entity: The court reiterated that a law affecting a single institution or entity must be based on a reasonable classification that has a direct nexus to the objective of the legislation. In this case, Khalsa University was singled out without valid justification, rendering the legislation arbitrary.
– Failure to Establish a Reasonable Nexus: The court found that the state’s justification for the repeal, i.e., to protect Khalsa College’s heritage, was not supported by facts. There was no evidence to show that Khalsa University’s existence threatened Khalsa College’s heritage.
– Constitutional Safeguards: The ruling emphasized that legislative actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny, particularly regarding equality before the law. The state’s failure to provide a reasonable basis for targeting Khalsa University violated this principle.
