The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on October 29, 2025, has affirmed the settled legal proposition that while the legislature does not possess the power to “sit over the judgment of a Court or usurp judicial power,” it is competent, subject to the power to make law, to “remove the basis which led to the Court’s decision.”
Applying this principle, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2023. The Court held this amendment was a valid “cure” for a procedural defect identified in a 2019 High Court judgment, and not an act of “overreaching” the judiciary.
The ruling validates a 2018 selection process for Associate Professors at the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Kurukshetra, and sets aside a subsequent 2024 High Court order that had mandated a fresh selection.
Background: The Original Defect and Judgment
The case originates from a 2017 “one-time relaxation” issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development via a letter. This letter waived a key eligibility criterion (Academic Grade Pay) for Assistant Professors seeking promotion, intending to address stagnation.
Based on this 2017 letter, NIT, Kurukshetra issued Advertisement No. 3/2018. The appellants, Ritu Garg and others, were selected and recommended for appointment on November 27, 2018.
However, this was challenged, and in a judgment dated December 5, 2019, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the 2017 letter. The High Court held that the relaxation could not be granted by an “executive instruction” (the letter) as it was contrary to the First Statutes of the NIT, which are statutory in nature. This judgment, which identified the procedural “defect,” was upheld by the Supreme Court on January 17, 2022.
The Legislative “Cure”
Following the finality of the 2019 judgment, the Ministry of Education moved a proposal to the Visitor (the President of India) to amend the statutes themselves. The summary note explicitly stated it had “become necessary to incorporate the clarifications vis-à-vis one-time relaxations… retrospectively”.
This proposal was approved, leading to the notification of the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2023, on June 30, 2023. The amendment introduced Statute 9, which legislatively incorporated the “one-time relaxation or measures… as per the relaxations issued… vide communications dated the 6th October, 2017”. The statute further clarified that this relaxation would “stand exhausted after the first round of recruitments” (i.e., the 2018 process).
Dispute over the Amendment
This 2023 statutory amendment was challenged in a second round of litigation. The writ petitioners argued that it was an attempt “to overturn the judgment” of the High Court and “overreach the process of the Courts.”
By its judgment dated May 31, 2024 (the “impugned order”), the High Court sided with the petitioners, holding that the 2023 amendment would “apply prospectively” from its 2023 publication date. It concluded that “the selection which were conducted under advertisement no. 3/2018 cannot be given approval by the new amendments” and directed a “fresh exercise”. The 2018 selected candidates appealed this order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: A Valid “Cure,” Not “Overreach”
The Supreme Court held that the High Court “erred” (Para 36) in its 2024 judgment.
The judgment, authored by Justice Datta, affirmed the legislature’s power by citing State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Para 32). The Court noted: “The legislature cannot overrule a judgment but it can remove the basis on which the judgment has been rendered.”
The Supreme Court (Para 36) found this is precisely what occurred. The 2019 High Court judgment was not “overreached”; it had correctly interdicted the 2017 executive instruction for being subordinate to a statute. The 2023 amendment, by contrast, was a valid legislative act that “cure[d] the defect on which the judicial order was premised” by elevating the relaxation into the statute itself.
The Court observed (Para 36) that the purpose of Statute 9 was “to give effect to the idea expressed in the letter dated 6th October, 2017… which… had been interdicted by the High Court… specifically on the ground that a statute was sought to be supplanted… by an executive instruction”.
The judgment further noted (Para 36) that the amendment was “clarificatory in nature to extend benefits… retrospectively,” a permissible act in line with the principle that clarificatory statutes are often held to be retrospective (citing S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab). The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s 2024 order “nullified the purpose for which Statute 9 was introduced.”
The Final Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court modified the impugned High Court order and directed the NIT, Kurukshetra Board of Governors to proceed with the 2018 selection list.
- The Board shall “consider for such appointment” (Para 38) the appellants and others recommended on November 27, 2018.
- Upon being found suitable, they will be offered “notional appointment” (Para 38) from a date (post-November 27, 2018) to be decided by the Board.
- Citing Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (Para 33), the Court clarified (Para 39) that appointees “shall not be entitled to claim any arrear financial benefit as well as teaching experience from the date of such notional appointment.”
- They shall, however, “be treated as Associate Professors from the dates of their notional appointment for the purpose of continuity in services to receive terminal benefits” (Para 40).
- The Board was directed to take a decision within one month.
- The Court made it “abundantly clear” (Para 42) that this “one-time relaxation… would stand exhausted” after this process.
