Moogambigai Charitable and Educational Trust and Others. vs Union of India and others. Writ Petition 7482/2020 & 9236/2020 decided on 3 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346425/1/WP7482-20-03-11-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: Page 38. (I) As to Center-State relationship in a federal structure and mutual deference between them: The people of this country through their Constitution have secured to themselves a polity of federal nature, arguably, whatever be its variants; the Apex Court in KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA, (1973) 4 SCC 225 has held that, ‘federalism’ is one of the basic features of our Constitution; it hardly needs to be stated that in the constitutionally-ordained-federal structure, the States cannot be treated as vassals of the Center, the sovereignty having been constitutionally divided between them; the Australian jurist Prof. K.C.Wheare, ascribes a ‘quasi federal’ tag to our Constitution, is beside the point; in the Center- State relations, the Constitution of India expects that the Center and the States should show due deference to each other, as being the co-ordinates; this assumes increasing importance with the increasing complexities of the enlargement of inter-state engagements in the context of ever widening socio-economic order;
(b) the UGC Regulations which are mandatory in nature recognize the stake-holding of the State Govts. in the matters relating not only to the grant of status of ‘Deemed to be University’ but also to the claims for inclusion of institutions of higher education & research in the ambit of such Universities; therefore, they explicitly require solicitation of the views of the State Govt. and their due consideration at the hands of the concerned in the decision making process; the same has not happened in this case is the complaint of the State Govt. which is substantiated by the abundance of material on record; the State Govt. has to notify its views to a statutory body like the UGC, does not relieve the Central Govt. from the duty imposed by law; the instances of the case at hand may give some scope for the criticism that the impugned action of the Central Govt. stands as a refutation of the elements that animate the federal character of our governance.
Page. 42. ….there being a strong presumption of constitutionality of plenary legislations vide Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279; in the case of conflict, arguably the Central law prevails over the State law; however, a deeper examination of this contention has not been undertaken, since these cases are being decided on other grounds; H.M.Seervai in his treatise, supra, at page 261 having surveyed the law relating to constitutional adjudication, writes: “The Court will not decide Constitutional questions if a case is capable of being decided on other grounds… The Court will not decide a larger Constitutional question than is required by the case before it”.
ALSO SEE: (I) As to exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 131 of the Constitution, in disputes between Central Government and State Governments:
Page 11. …in view of the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, some doubt arose in the mind of this Court as to the maintainability of said writ petition, although none of the parties in their pleadings or submissions mentioned about the same; it is profitable to reproduce Article 131, for the ease of reference:
“Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (marginal note to the Article)
Art. 131. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States; or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends:”
Going by the text & context of this Article, it can be stated that the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in disputes as to the existence of a legal right between the Union and the States, or between the States inter se, is exclusive, subject to constitutional exceptions; going by its intent & content, this Article would ordinarily be attracted only when the dispute arises between or amongst the States and the Union in their constitutional capacity, stricto sensu as contradistinguished from other capacities, of course subject to all just exceptions; it is a constitutional conferment of jurisdiction in regard to certain specified matters which are required to be decided by the Apex Court by reason of the nature of the “differences and disputes” that may crop up in the functioning of a federal structure like ours; in a constitutional set up based on the federal principle, sovereignty having been divided between the federation and the units, obviously disputes arise inter se; this conferment of jurisdiction is under special circumstances and for special reasons having the concept of justice as being the predominant factor that appears to have prompted the Makers of our Constitution to enact such a provision in the Primary Document; the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UOI, (1977) 4 SCC 608 observed “…
Disputes of the nature described in Article 131 are usually of an urgent nature and their decision can brook no delay. It is therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that they should, as far as possible, be brought before and decided by this Court so as to obviate the dilatoriness of a possible appeal. An original proceeding decided by this Court is decided once and for all”.
Mr. H.M.Seervai in his treatise “Constitutional Law of India” 4th Edition (Tripathi) at page 2635 of his treatise, writes: “… Under Article 131 there are only two limitations to the exercise of the Sup. Ct.’s jurisdiction, namely, that the suit or proceeding should be between the parties specified under Article 131 and the dispute between those parties must relate to a legal right…”;
Daksha Legal 