Supreme Court Upholds Kerala’s Takeover of Aided Schools: A.A. Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 123
Judges: Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan

Can a state government take over a school that has already begun the process of closing down? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Kerala Education Act, 1958. This judgment clarifies the extent of the government’s power to acquire aided schools and the rights of the school managements. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, which allows the government to take over aided schools under certain conditions. This case examines whether the government can exercise this power even after the school management has initiated the closure process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, A.A. Padmanabhan, managed P.M.L.P. School in Kerala, an aided institution. In 2015, the appellant initiated the process to close the school by giving a notice as required under Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The Education Authorities did not allow the closure, leading to a writ petition by the appellant. Simultaneously, the Headmistress and the Parent-Teacher Association filed a writ petition seeking the government to take over the school. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the school to be closed, but the Division Bench directed the State to consider taking over the school. The State’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, with a direction to shift the children to another school after the academic year.

Despite the Supreme Court order, the school management filed a contempt application, which was closed after the government stated that all closure formalities were completed. However, before this, the Chief Minister of Kerala decided on 07.06.2016 to take over the school under Section 15 of the Act. This decision was endorsed by the Council of Ministers on 29.06.2016. The Kerala Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on 18.07.2016 to take over the school, and a notification was issued on 27.07.2016. A modified notification on 03.08.2016 stated that the school would vest in the government after compensation was fixed. The appellant challenged these notifications, arguing that the school was already closed when the takeover decision was made.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition challenging the Education Authorities’ refusal to allow the school’s closure. The High Court Single Judge allowed the closure. However, the Division Bench, while upholding the closure, directed the State to consider representations to take over the school. The State’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, with a direction to shift the children to another school after the academic year.

The appellant then filed a contempt application, which was closed after the government stated that all closure formalities were completed. Subsequently, the State Government decided to take over the school. The appellant challenged this decision in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench also dismissed the subsequent writ appeals, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(1) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Defines “aided school” as a private school recognized by and receiving aid from the government.
• Section 2(9) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Defines “school” to include the land, buildings, playgrounds, hostels, and movable properties such as furniture, books, apparatus, maps, and equipment.
• Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: States that no manager shall close down any school unless one year’s notice is given to the authorized officer. “No manager shall close down any school unless one year’s notice, expiring with the 31st May of any year, of his intention so to do, has been given to the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf.”
• Rule 24 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959: Specifies the procedure for the closure of private schools, requiring a one-year notice to the Director of Education. “(1) No private school shall be closed down without giving the Director one year’s notice expiring with the 31st May of any year of the intention to do so.”
• Section 15(1) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Empowers the government to take over aided schools if it is necessary for standardizing education, improving literacy, managing institutions effectively, or bringing education under direct control. “If the Government are satisfied that for standardising general education in the State or for improving the level of literacy in any area or for more effectively managing the aided educational institutions in any area or for bringing education of any category under their direct control in the public interest it is necessary to do so, they may, by notification in the Gazette, take over with effect from any day specified therein any category of aided schools in any specified area or areas; and such schools shall vest in the Government absolutely with effect from the day specified in such notification; Provided that no notification under this sub-section shall be issued unless the proposal for the taking over is supported by the resolution of the Legislative Assembly.”
• Section 15(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Provides for compensation to be paid to the persons entitled on the basis of the market value of the school as on the date of the notification.

These provisions are to be read in the context of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children of 6 to 14 years, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the State Government could not exercise power under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, to take over a school that had already been closed. The appellant contended that the school was closed on 08.06.2016, while the notification under Section 15 was issued on 27.07.2016. The appellant also argued that the school and its properties could only be acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act), after paying compensation as per that Act. It was also submitted that Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, was repugnant to the 2013 Act under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, and that the closure of the school had attained finality after the Supreme Court’s order on 05.10.2015.

The State of Kerala argued that the decision to take over the school was made by the Chief Minister on 07.06.2016, before the school was actually closed. The State contended that the decision was ratified by the Council of Ministers on 29.06.2016 and that the notification was a consequence of this decision. The State also argued that Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, operates in a different field from the 2013 Act and that there was no conflict or repugnancy between the two. The State also submitted that Section 15 itself provides for compensation at market rate, which the Collector had determined, and that the action of taking over the schools was to fulfill its obligation to provide education to primary school students.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues addressed by the Court were:

1. Whether the State Government could exercise power under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, to take over a school that had initiated closure procedures.
2. Whether the acquisition of the school’s properties should have been done under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Whether Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, was repugnant to the 2013 Act under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision. These are categorized below:

On the interpretation of executive power and government decisions:

• Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 831: The Supreme Court held that the satisfaction of the President or Governor is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers in a constitutional sense.
• A.Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. Vs. State of Madras & Anr., (1970) 1 SCC 443: The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Secretary to the Government was the decision of the Governor as per Business Rules.

On the principles of repugnancy and pith and substance:

• Deep Chand Vs. State of U.P and others, AIR 1959 SC 648: The Supreme Court laid down the principles for ascertaining inconsistency/repugnancy between two statutes.
• State of Kerala and others Vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and another, (2012) 7 SCC 106: The Supreme Court discussed the question of repugnancy between parliamentary and state legislation.
• Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569: The Supreme Court emphasized that entries in the legislative lists must be construed with the widest amplitude and that the doctrine of pith and substance must be applied.
• A.S. Krishna and others Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 297: The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of pith and substance in the context of overlapping legislative entries.
• Union of India and others Vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers’ College, (2002) 8 SCC 228: The Supreme Court discussed the principle that entries in different lists should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any of them.

On the right to property:

• Bhusawal Municipal Council Vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and others, (2015) 14 SCC 327: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of compensation for acquired land and the constitutional right to property.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 21A of the Constitution of India: Guarantees free and compulsory education to children of 6 to 14 years.
• Article 154 of the Constitution of India: States that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor.
• Article 166 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the conduct of business of the Government of a State.
• Article 254 of the Constitution of India: Deals with inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.
• Article 300A of the Constitution of India: States that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
• Section 2(1) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Defines “aided school”.
• Section 2(9) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Defines “school”.
• Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Deals with the closure of schools.
• Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958: Deals with the power to acquire any category of schools.
• Rule 24 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959: Provides for the closure of private schools.
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Provides for free and compulsory education to children.
• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Deals with land acquisition and compensation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Kerala High Court’s decision. The Court held that the State Government had validly exercised its power under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, to take over the aided schools.

The Court emphasized that the decision to take over the schools was made by the Chief Minister on 07.06.2016, before the actual closure of the schools. The Court noted that the satisfaction of the government is the first step in initiating the process under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The Court also held that the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the 2013 Act operate in different fields and that there was no repugnancy between the two. The Court stated that the State is entitled to take over a school for the purpose and object as contained in Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The Court also highlighted that the State is obligated to provide education to children up to 14 years of age.

The Court also addressed the argument that the school’s properties should have been acquired under the 2013 Act. The Court held that the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the 2013 Act operate in different fields and that Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, provides for compensation based on market value. The Court also noted that the State had already determined the compensation and that the owners were entitled to appeal the Collector’s order to the District Court.

The Court stated that the decision of theChief Minister to take over the school was a valid decision of the Government. The Court referred to the cases of Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 831 and A.Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. Vs. State of Madras & Anr., (1970) 1 SCC 443 to explain that the satisfaction of the Governor is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers in a constitutional sense and the decision of the Secretary to the Government was the decision of the Governor as per Business Rules.

The Court also held that Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, was not repugnant to the 2013 Act. The Court referred to the cases of Deep Chand Vs. State of U.P and others, AIR 1959 SC 648, State of Kerala and others Vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and another, (2012) 7 SCC 106, Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, A.S. Krishna and others Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 297, and Union of India and others Vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers’ College, (2002) 8 SCC 228 to explain the principles of repugnancy and pith and substance.

The Court also rejected the argument that the State had violated Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Court noted that Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, provides for compensation at market rate and that the Collector had already determined the market value of the schools. The Court also referred to the case of Bhusawal Municipal Council Vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and others, (2015) 14 SCC 327 to emphasize the importance of compensation for acquired land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in A.A. Padmanabhan vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. clarifies the scope of the State Government’s power to take over aided schools under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958. The Court held that the government can take over a school even after the school management has initiated closure procedures, provided that the decision to take over was made before the actual closure. The Court also found that the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the 2013 Act operate in different fields and that there was no repugnancy between the two. The Court emphasized that the State is obligated to provide education to children and that the takeover of schools was a valid exercise of its power.

The judgment underscores the importance of the State’s role in ensuring access to education and clarifies the legal framework within which the State can exercise its power to take over aided schools. It also clarifies that the State is obligated to pay compensation at the market rate, which is in line with the constitutional right to property.

Flowchart of Events

Ratio of the Case

Sentiment Analysis