There Cannot Be Any Difference Between Minority And Non Minority Aid Institutions in Right To Get Aid From Govt Not Fundamental Right

Name of the Case

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College

Key Takeaways

• A provision of the Intermediate Education Act was held as unconstitutional which was challenged before the Court though a Writ Petition.
• Regulation 101 is a piece of subordinate legislation that implements a policy decision.
• On the basis of mere presumption and assumption, outsourcing cannot be considered ultra vires of the constitution.
• The Court remarked that outsourcing is being implemented as a policy across the state.

Background

• Intermediate Education Act, 1921's Regulation 101 was held invalid by the High Court.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's ruling that the Regulation 101 is unconstitutional.
• The petitioners had argued against Regulation 101 that,

a. Filling the sanctioned post of Class IV employees only by outsourcing is a blatant violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
b. The challenged regulation is attempting to overrule Section 16G of the Act.
c. The principal law that impacts the right to receive help breaches Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution, which grants minority institutions fundamental rights.

• The State argued before the Supreme Court that because there is no fundamental right to receive aid or a vested one, the institutions receiving aid are obligated by the limitations attached.

Court’s Observation

• The nature of Article 14 is positive. In creating the classification, the lawmaker should be given sufficient leverage.
• The requirements set on an institution receiving aid are binding, and it is assumed that it will be complied.
• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution does not ban discrimination; nevertheless, justified discrimination against a hostile party is required. A challenge to a regulation is treated differently from a challenge to an enactment.
• For a proper comprehension of an old enactment, the principle of ‘always speaking’ should be employed as a principle of interpretation.
• A realistic, constructive, and purposeful reading would be appropriate.

Court’s Order

• The Court also ordered the state to carry out the necessary steps to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to guarantee that Outsourcing is properly implemented.
• When a regulation, rule, or Act is challenged, it is up to the challengers to persuade the Court that the regulation, rule, or Act cannot be upheld in the eyes of the law.
• The fact that a State's attorney is unable to persuade the Court of the constitutionality of the challenged policy does not imply that it is unconstitutional.
• There is no distinction between minority and non-minority assisted institutions, and their right to receive government assistance is not a basic right.

Do you think government assistance should be provided equally to everyone? Do you think there is a violation of fundamental rights? Tell us in the comments section below!