DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & Anr.

of Article 14 of the Constitution, on the ground that the Dental Colleges established prior to impugned Notification would not be required to be attached with the Medical Colleges, whereas, the Dental Colleges, established after the impugned Notification, will be compelled to be attached to such Medical Colleges. We are of the considered view that the Colleges established prior to the impugned Notification and the Colleges established/to be established after the impugned Notification would form two separate classes. The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. For the reasons given hereinafter, we find that the factors taken into consideration by the Council, while amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations are relevant factors. The factors have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It has been submitted on behalf of the Council that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations was brought into effect so that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed Dental Colleges as per the syllabus/course curriculum prescribed. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Council has taken into consideration the factors, which are not relevant or germane for the purpose to be achieved. The object to be achieved is to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. If in the wisdom of the expert body, this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already existing Medical College, it cannot be faulted with. [Para 31][653- F-H; A-E]

#4. The amended Regulation cannot be said to be one, which is manifestly arbitrary, so as to permit the Court to interfere with it. On the contrary, this Court finds that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. [Para 33][654-G-H; 655-A]

#5. That leaves with the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the amended Regulation is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench itself has held that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, A B C D E F G H DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. 639 be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. [Paras 40 and 41][657-C, F-G]

#6. Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is also not sustainable on the ground of judicial propriety. In writ petition filed before division bench, the prayer was for challenging the validity of the impugned Notification and for a direction to reconsider the proposal of the respondent No.1. The impugned Notification could have very well been challenged in the earlier writ petition, which was filed in the year 2016 before the learned single judge of the High Court. However, having failed in that writ petition before the learned single judge, the respondent No.1 filed another writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court. Though one of the prayers challenges the validity of the impugned Notification, another prayer claims for reconsideration of its proposal. It could thus be seen that the prayer for reconsideration of the proposal submitted by the respondent No.1, which was already rejected by the learned single judge of the High Court has been renewed in the fresh writ petition filed in the year 2017 and granted by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, on the ground of judicial propriety also the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition for a prayer, which already stood rejected. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable. [ Paras 43 and 44][658-A-B; D-H] Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another (2001) 5 SCC 486 : [2001] 3 SCR 149; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27 : [1985] 1 SCR 29; India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others (2009) 11 SCC 726 : [2009] 3 SCR 859; Indian Express Newspapers Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others (1985) 1 SCC 641 : [1985] 2 SCR 287 Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (1996) 10 SCC 304 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 759; A B C D E F G H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E State of T.N. and another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others (2006) 4 SCC 517 : [2006] 3 SCR 396; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association. vs. Union of India and another (1989) 4 SCC 187 : [1989] 3 SCR 488; Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others (1990) 3 SCC 223 : [1990] 1 SCR 909; St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another (2003) 3 SCC 321 : [2003] 1 SCR 975; Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and other (1981) 2 SCC 722 : [1981] 2 SCR 866 ; Union of India and another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another (1987) 2 SCC 720 : [1987] 2 SCR 841 ; State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan and others (1988) 3 SCC 416; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2001] 3 SCR 149 [1985] 2 SCR 287 referred to referred to [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 759 referred to [2006] 3 SCR 396 [1989] 3 SCR 488 [1990] 1 SCR 909 F [2003] 1 SCR 975 [1981] 2 SCR 866 [1987] 2 SCR 841 (1988) 3 SCC 416 G [1985] 1 SCR 29 [2009] 3 SCR 859 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 11 Para 22 Para 25 Para 26 Para 26 Para 26 Para 26 Para 26 Para 26 Para 26 Para 35 Para 38 Para 40 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2912 H of 2022. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. 641 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2018 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writs No.3260 of 2017. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Rajendra Kumar Panigrahi, Ms. Jessy Kurien, Nishant Bahuguna, Vidit Agarwal, Shubham Jalan, Ms. Prachi Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Shailesh Madiyal, Digvijay Dam, Bhuvan Kapoor, Himanshu Satija, Ms. Shristi Misra, Ms. Poornima Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. R. GAVAI, J.

#1. Leave granted.

#2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dated 24th April, 2018, passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017, thereby allowing the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.1-Biyani Shikshan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No.1”) and striking down the Notification dated 21st May, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned Notification”), vide which the appellant-Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”), had substituted Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”), on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and also being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

#3. The facts in the present case are not in dispute.

#4. The respondent No. 1 had submitted an application to the Government of India for grant of permission for establishment of dental college from academic year 2012-2013 on 24th September, 2011. This was after the Letter of Intent was issued by the State Government on 23rd September, 2011. The respondent No. 2 – Union of India, through A B C D E F G H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section) [hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No.2”), noticed certain deficiencies in the proposal of the respondent No.1 and vide its letter dated 7th October, 2011, required the respondent No.1 to cure the said deficiencies.

#5. After exchange of certain communications, on 6th January, 2012, the respondent No.2, returned the application of the respondent No.1 along with demand draft of Rs.6 lakh, on the ground that deficiencies pointed out were not cured prior to 31st December, 2011, i.e., the last date for curing the deficiencies.

#6. In the meantime, the Government of Rajasthan issued Essentiality Certificate to the respondent No.1 on 11th January, 2012. However, on 17th February, 2012, the respondent No.2 declined to reconsider the application/request of the respondent No.1, on the grounds stated in its earlier letter, dated 6th January, 2012. As such, the request of the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of its proposal came to be rejected by the respondent No.2, vide its communication dated 17th February, 2012.

#7. In the meantime, vide the impugned Notification, existing Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations was substituted by amended Regulation 6(2)(h) on 21st May, 2012. Respondent No.1 again submitted its fresh application on 28th September, 2012 for academic year 2013- 2014. The same was returned by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 31st December, 2012, on the ground that the proposal/application was not in compliance with the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. On 23rd January, 2013, the respondent No.1 thereafter wrote a letter to the respondent No.2, stating therein that since Essentiality Certificate was issued to it on 11th January, 2012, the impugned Notification was not applicable to it and requested for reconsideration of its application under the unamended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. The respondent No.2 rejected the application of the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 5th March, 2013.

#8. The respondent No.1 challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the request for reconsideration of its application before the learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15090 of 2016. The respondent No.1 further sought a direction to reconsider the application submitted by it on 24th September, 2011 for establishment DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. [B. R. GAVAI, J.] 643 of a new dental college for academic session 2017-2018. The learned single judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2016, finding no merit in the writ petition, dismissed the same. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed a writ petition before the Division Bench being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017, challenging the impugned Notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. The respondent No.1 also sought a prayer for direction to the respondent No.2, for reconsidering its application, dated 28th September, 2012, for establishment of a new Dental College for academic session 2018-2019 and for subsequent academic sessions. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said writ petition by striking down the impugned Notification and directed the respondent No. 2 to reconsider the case of the respondent No.1 in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the Council.

#9. We have heard Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Council, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General (“ASG” for short) appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

#10. Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel, would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court has grossly erred in allowing the writ petition. He submits that the Council is an expert statutory body duly constituted under the said Act. He submits that the said Act empowers the Council to make Regulations for various aspects concerned with Dental Education, including prescribing requirement of minimum standards. He submits that the Council, after examining various aspects, had found it necessary to amend Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. He submits that this was done for providing better teaching facilities to the students and for improving the standards of education. He submits that the Division Bench has grossly erred in holding that it was beyond the powers of the Council to make delegated legislation. He submits that, in any case, the finding of the High Court that the impugned Notification was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, is totally erroneous.

#11. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG also supports the submission made on behalf of the Council. Relying on the judgment of A B C D E F G H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G this Court in the case of Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another1,she submits that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the impugned Notification, since the Regulations were made by the expert body in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

#12. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, on the contrary, would submit that the High Court has rightly quashed the impugned Notification. She submits that the impugned Notification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. She submits that there is a huge shortage of Dentists in the country and therefore, the object of the legislation should be to encourage establishment of more Dental Colleges rather than providing a requirement which will restrict the number of new Dental Colleges. On facts, she submits that there is no medical college within the vicinity of 100 kms. from the place at which the respondent No.1 proposes to start a new Dental College. She submits that the impugned Notification, therefore, violates the fundamental rights of the students to take dental education as well as the fundamental right of the respondent No.1 to establish an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

#13. For considering the rival submissions, it will be appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the said Act. Section 3 of the said Act requires the Central Government to constitute a Council consisting of members named therein. Section 10 of the said Act deals with recognition of dental qualifications. Section 10A of the said Act deals with permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc. Sub- section (1) of Section 10A of the said Act puts restriction on the establishment of an authority or institution for a course of study or training which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the grant of recognized dental qualification; it also imposes a restriction on opening a new or higher course of study or training, or increase the admission capacity in any course of study or training, including a post- graduate course of study or training. It is provided that no person can establish an authority or institution for dental education and that no authority or institution can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training, or increase its admission capacity without the prior permission of the Central Government. Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 10A of the said Act deal H 1 (2001) 5 SCC 486 DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. [B. R. GAVAI, J.] 645 with the procedure to be followed for making an application for permission to start a new or higher course of study or training or increase of intake capacity in any course of study or training. Sub-section (5) of Section 10A of the said Act is a deeming provision, which provides that if the Central Government fails to pass an order on the scheme/application submitted by the applicant within a period of one year from the date of submitting the scheme/application, such scheme/application shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it was submitted. It also provides that the permission of the Central Government required under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. Sub-section (6) of Section 10A of the said Act provides for extension of the period provided in sub-section (5) by entitling an applicant for the extension of the period for furnishing the particulars called for by the Council or by the Central Government.

#14. It will be apposite to reproduce sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act, since the same fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court while allowing the writ petition. It reads thus: “10A. Permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc.—(1) ………………………… (2)……………………………………………… (7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub- section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:— (a) whether the proposed authority or institution for grant of recognised dental qualification or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the requirements referred to in Section 16-A and the regulations made under sub-section (1) of Section 20; A B C D E F G H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (b) (c) (d) (e) whether the person seeking to establish an authority or institution or the existing authority or institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate resources; whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the authority or institution or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time- limit specified in the scheme; whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such authority or institution or course of study or training by persons having the recognised dental qualifications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of dentistry; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed.”

#15. It could thus be seen that the Council, while making its recommendations and the Central Government, while passing an order, are required to take into consideration various factors as are enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act.

#16. Section 20 of the said Act empowers the Council, with the approval of the Central Government, to make Regulations. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of Section 20 of the said Act, which reads thus: “20. Power to make regulations.-(1) The Council may, with the approval of the Central Government, by notification in the DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. [B. R. GAVAI, J.] 647 Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. A (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such regulations may- (a) …………………………………………… (b) …………………………………………… (fb) prescribe any other factors under clause (g) of sub-section (7) of section 10A”

#17. It could thus be seen from the conjoint reading of clause (g) of sub-section (7) of Section 10A and clause (fb) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act that the Council is also empowered to take into consideration any other factors as may be prescribed and also entitled to make Regulations for prescribing any other factor under clause (g) of sub-section (7) of Section 10A.

#18. It will also be relevant to refer to the provision of Regulation 6(2)(h) as it existed prior to the impugned Notification and the amended provision after the impugned Notification was given effect to. They read thus: “Regulation 6(2)(h) prior to impugned Notification dated 21st May, 2012

#6. Eligibility and qualifying criteria.- (1) ………………………………………….. (2) The organizations under sub-regulation (1) shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a dental college if the following conditions are fulfilled:- (a) (b) ………………………………………….. ………………………………………….. (h) the applicant owns and manages a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds as per Annexure I with necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre-clinical, para-clinical and allied medical sciences in the campus of the proposed dental college, B C D E F G H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H the proposed dental college is located in the proximity of a Government Medical College or a Medical College recognised by the Medical Council of India and an undertaking of the said Medical College to the effect that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed dental college in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery and Allied Medical Sciences has been obtained, where no Medical College is available in the proximity of the proposed dental college, the proposed dental college gets itself tied up at least for 5 years with a Government General Hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 K.M. of the proposed dental college and the tie-up is extendable till it has its own 100 bedded hospital in the same premises. In such cases, the applicant shall produce evidence that necessary infrastructure facilities including teaching pre-clinical, para-clinical and allied medical sciences are owned by the proposed dental college itself; Regulation 6(2)(h) after the impugned Notification dated 21st May, 2012

#6. Eligibility and qualifying criteria.- (1) ………………………………………….. (2) The organizations under sub-regulation (1) shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a dental college if the following conditions are fulfilled:- (a) (b) ………………………………………….. ………………………………………….. (h) the applicant shall attach its proposed dental college with a Government/Private Medical College approved/recognised by the Medical Council of India which is located at the distance of 10 kms. by road from the proposed dental college and produce evidence of the said Medical College to the effect that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed dental college as DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. [B. R. GAVAI, J.] 649 per syllabus/course curriculum prescribed in respective undergraduate and post graduate dental course regulations as amended from time to time:- Provided that not more than one dental college shall be attached with the medical college.”

#19. It could thus be seen that the change that has been brought by the impugned Notification is that, though under the unamended Regulation 6(2)(h), an applicant was entitled to apply if he/she/it owned and managed a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds; by the impugned Notification, it has been made mandatory that the applicant has to attach its proposed Dental College with the Government/Private Medical College, approved/ recognized by the Medical Council of India, which is located at a distance of 10 kilometers by road from the proposed Dental College. The distance of 10 kilometers has now been increased to 30 kilometers, vide amendment dated 5th July, 2017.

#20. The Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018, has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notification on three grounds, viz., (i) (ii) (iii) that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; that it is beyond the scope of the powers of the Council to make delegated legislation as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act; and that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Dental Colleges established prior to impugned Notification would be permitted to run without attachment with Medical Colleges, whereas, the Dental Colleges established after the impugned Notification will be compelled to have such an attachment with the Medical Colleges. A B C D E F

#21. We find that the learned judges of the Division Bench have G erred on all counts.

#22. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others2. 2 (1985) 1 SCC 641 H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H “75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.”

#23. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. Though it may also be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.

#24. It has further been held by this Court in the said case that for challenging the subordinate legislation on the ground of arbitrariness, it can only be done when it is found that it is not in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. It has further been held that it cannot be done merely on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it has not taken into account relevant circumstances which the Court considers relevant.

#25. The judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. (supra) has been followed by a three-judge Bench of this Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others3. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case: “13. It is next submitted before us that the amended Rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship and, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Although the protection of Article 19(1)(g) may not be available to the appellants, the rules 3 (1996) 10 SCC 304 DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. [B. R. GAVAI, J.] 651 must, undoubtedly, satisfy the test of Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary action. However, one must bear in mind that what is being challenged here under Article 14 is not executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law-making power. In the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121 : (1985) 2 SCR 287] (SCR at p. 243) this Court said that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. A subordinate legislation may be questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable; “unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary”. Drawing a comparison between the law in England and in India, the Court further observed that in England the Judges would say, “Parliament never intended the authority to make such Rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires”. In India, arbitrariness is not a separate ground since it will come within the embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. But subordinate legislation must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.”

#26. In the case of State of T.N. and another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others4 after considering the law laid down by this Court earlier in the cases of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association. vs. Union of India and another5, Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others6, St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another7, Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others8, Union of India and