Moving Education From Concurrent List To State List: Madras High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

The Madras High Court recently referred to a larger bench, an issue pertaining challenge to the removal of Education from the State List to the Concurrent List. The bench of Acting Chief Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan directed the registry to place the note on the administrative side before the Acting Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench. The directions were issued in a plea by Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust which challenged the validity of Section 57 of the Constitution (Fourty-Second Amendment Act) 1976 so far as it relates to Entry 11 of List II and Entry 25 of List III. The petitioner contended that the section was ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The petitioner submitted that Education should essentially be a State subject as state was best suited to determine the needs of the people. When the matter came up yesterday, Senior Counsel N.R Elango, appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the observation of the court that the matter pertains to a vintage constitutional amendment, it would be appropriate that the issue be decided by a larger bench. Advocates General R Shanmugasundaram and Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan concurred with this submission. The court thus decided to refer the matter to a larger bench to decide the following legal questions put forward by the petitioners: 1. Whether Section 57 of the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976 so far as it relates to Entry 11 of List II and Entry 25 of List III is ultra vires being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution? 2. Whether the section violates the Federal Structure inasmuch as it subjugates the States' executive and legislative power to deal with the subject "Education" at non-graduate level to Union's executive and legislative power? 3. Whether "Education" is essentially a State subject and can Union usurp power to regulate the State's autonomy in matters of education in areas other than those covered by Entries enumerated in List 1 of Seventh Schedule? 4. In the absence of a specific denial by the first respondent (Union of India) of the averments made in the affidavit, whether it can be taken that the Union Government has admitted the averments in the affidavit?" Case Title: Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust v. Union of India and others Case No: WP No. 19490 of 2021Click here to read/download the order

Moving Education From Concurrent List To State List: Madras High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Upasana Sajeev

Tags