Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 240 To LL 2021 SC 262]

1. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act; Reads Down Sections 4, 7 and 10 [Case: Indian School, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 240] A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari upheld the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016. "The dispensation envisaged under Section 6 of the impugned Act of 2016 is not intended to undermine the autonomy of the school Management in the matter of determination of fee structure itself. What it envisages is that the school Management may determine its own fee structure, but may finalise or give effect to the same after interacting with the SLFC", the Court clarified. However, the Court read down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act that pertain to members and membership of the SLFC. It also held that State's regulation of profiteering by education institutions cannot be held to be violating the managements' fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In this context, it directed the schools to provide deduction of 15 per cent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-21. Also Read: State Regulation Of Profiteering By Schools Does Not Violate Managements' Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(g): Supreme Court Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Private Schools To Give 15% Deduction In Annual School Fees; No Student To Be Debarred For Non-Payment Of Fees Also Read: Authorities Under Disaster Management Act Cannot Alter Fee Structure Of Private Schools: Supreme Court 2. "Encroachment Of State Legislature Upon The Domain Of Parliament": Supreme Court Strikes Down West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act [Case: Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 241] A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah struck down the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, holding it to be unconstitutional in view of the 2017 Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act which is the central legislation on the identical subject-matter. However, with a view to prevent any chaos in the real estate industry in the state, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142, clarified that all sanctions and registrations previously granted under the HIRA prior to the date of this judgment shall continue to prevail The Court also added that the striking down of the 2017 state Act would not revive the 1993 Act which was in force in the state for the regulation of promotion of construction as the same stood impliedly repealed by the enactment of the RERA. Also Read: Concept Of Repugnancy Under Article 254 : Supreme Court Explains 3. No Scope For Adopting Either A Liberal Or A Narrow Approach In Construing Contractual Clause, Reiterates Supreme Court [Case: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) v. ES Solar Power Pvt. Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 242] A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran reiterated the principles for interpretation of a contract. "In seeking to construe a clause in a Contract, there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow approach, whatever that may mean. The exercise which has to be undertaken is to determine what the words used mean," it observed. The Court observed thus while dismissing an appeal against a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at Delhi by which the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) was reversed. KERC had dismissed the petitions filed against the reduction of the tariff payable by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) from Rs. 6.10/kWh to Rs. 4.36/kWh and imposition of damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- for delay in commissioning the plan. 4. Supreme Court Strikes Down Maratha Quota; Says No Exceptional Circumstance To Grant Reservation In Excess Of 50% Ceiling Limit [Case: Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister; Citation: LL 2021 SC 243] A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of 50% ceiling limit as unconstitutional. The Court unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class. The Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)". The majority judgment held that after the introduction of Articles 338B and 342A to the Constitution "the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 240 To LL 2021 SC 262]

Akshita Saxena

Tags