Policy decisions can't be changed for political reasons: Supreme Court

In a rap for political parties, the Supreme Court today ruled government cannot effect policy changes for political considerations on mere change of guard as it would be in conflict with the rule of law.

Rejecting Jayalalithaa government's bid to amend the TN Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010, of the previous DMK dispensation for deferring its implementation, the apex court said once an Act has been upheld by a court, the government cannot adopt back-door methods to nullify the effect of a judicial decision.

"Unless it is found that the act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to statutory provisions, is unreasonable or is against public interest, the state should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come to power.

"Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law," a three-judge bench of Justices JM Panchal, Deepak Verma and BS Chauhan said in a judgment.

The apex court passed the judgment while dismissing Tamil Nadu government's appeal challenging the Madras High Court's direction for implementing the Act and quashing the amendment brought in by the state.

The amendment sought to defer implementation of the original Act on the plea that text books printed as part of the curriculum were of substandard quality and intended to promote the interests of DMK.

"The action becomes bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, guided by an extraneous consideration, whether good or bad but irrelevant to the entrustment.

"When the custodian of power is influenced in exercise of its power by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the action becomes bad for the reason that power has not been exercised bonafide for the end design, Justice Chauhan, writing the judgment, said.

The apex court, however, said if the government felt that text books contained material promoting the political or personal interests of the previous dispensation it could have been deleted by an executive order.

The bench regretted that instead it chose to put the career and future of over 1.2 crore students in jeopardy by deferring implementation of the Act.

"The state government should have acted bearing in mind that destiny of a nation rests with its youths. Personality of a child is developed at the time of basic education during his formative years of life. Their career should not be left in conditions with uncertainty to such a great extent.

"The younger generation has to compete in global market. Education is not a consumer service nor the educational institution can be equated with shops. Therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institutions without prior permission or approval by the authority concerned," the bench said.

Justice Chauhan, however, agreed that in the text books printed by the previous DMK government certain references were incorporated to promote the political interests of that party.

"Undoubtedly, there had been a few instances of portraying the personality by the leader of the political party earlier in power, ie personal glorification, self publicity and promotion of his own cult and philosophy, which could build his political image and influence the young students, particularly, in the books of primary classes", the bench said.

"Such objectionable material, if any, could be deleted, rather than putting the operation of the Act 2010 in abeyance for indefinite period, the bench said.

The apex court said the government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing and principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity, fair play.

"If a decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate," the bench said citing its earlier ruling in the Onkar La Bajaj Vs Union of India.

The bench said conferring unfettered, uncanalised powers without laying down certain norms for enforcement of the Act tantamount to abdication of legislative power by the legislature, which is not permissible in law.

The apex court said since the original Act has been upheld by it, the government cannot exercise its power to nullify the effect of the judgement by bringing in the amendment.

"A judicial pronouncement of a competent court cannot be annulled by the legislature in exercise of its legislative powers for any reason whatsoever.

"The legislature, in order to re validate the law,can re-frame the conditions existing prior to the  judgment on the basis of which certain statutory provisions had been declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.

"What could have been done with the help of a needle was unnecessarily attempted by wielding a sword from the blunt side. Not only this, the said provision was not even pointed out by the state machinery before the High Court nor did its legal infantry choose to examine the same," the bench said.

The apex court said  Statement of Objects and Reasons given to the Amendment Act 2011 reveal a very sorry state of affairs and point towards the intention of the legislature not to enforce the Act 2010 at all.

"The Amendment Act 2011, in fact, nullified the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 30.4.2010, duly approved by the order of this court dated 10.9.2010, and tantamount to repealing of the Act 2010 as  unfettered and uncanalised power has been bestowed upon the government to notify the commencement of the uniform education system.," the bench said.

The bench said if 1.20 crore students were to revert back to the multiple syllabus with the syllabus and textbooks applicable prior to 2010 after the academic term of 2011-12 has begun, they would be utterly confused and would be put to enormous stress.

"Students cannot be put to so much strain and stress unnecessarily. The entire exercise by the government is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to students, teachers and parents," the apex court said.