Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of subvention payment by the Government of India to a medical college for students admitted up to the academic year 2002-03. The subvention scheme had been created by an interim order of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (1995) to curb capitation fee, providing Rs.5,000 per student per annum. The scheme was subject to the final outcome of the case. The 11-Judge Bench finally decided TMA Pai Foundation on 31.10.2002, holding that the scheme in Unni Krishnan's case (except for primary education as a fundamental right) was unconstitutional and that capitation fee and profiteering should not be allowed. The respondent college had filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court after the Government stopped payment. The Single Bench quashed the denial and directed payment for students admitted in academic year 2002-03 and earlier, reasoning that actions under the interim order created vested rights and that the final decision was prospective as per the clarificatory order in State of Karnataka v. TMA Pai Foundation (2003). The Division Bench affirmed. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed two questions: whether the final decision in TMA Pai Foundation rendered the impugned orders liable to interference, and whether the appellants were entitled to relief. The Court noted that the respondent college had not furnished any data on fee collected and expenses incurred, and in the absence of such evidence, following Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, the claim could not be entertained. On merits, the Court held that the final 11-Judge Bench decision impliedly declared the subvention scheme unconstitutional, as it was based on the Unni Krishnan scheme which was overruled. The clarificatory order did not expressly make the final decision prospective; it merely remitted pending cases to High Courts with a direction to bring schemes in conformity. Therefore, no continuing right to subvention survived after the final decision. The appeal was allowed, the impugned High Court orders were set aside, and the college was held not entitled to subvention for the period after academic year 2002-03.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Government Aid - Subvention Scheme - Constitution of India - Subvention scheme created pursuant to interim order dated 11.08.1995 in TMA Pai Foundation case, meant to eliminate capitation fee pending final decision, was impliedly declared unconstitutional by the final 11-Judge Bench on 31.10.2002; Held that after the final decision, the subvention scheme no longer survived and the respondent college was not entitled to subvention for students admitted in academic years after 2002-03 (Paras 4, 8, 10) B) Education Law - Government Aid - Vested Right and Prospectivity - Constitution of India - The Single Bench had held that vested rights were created by the interim order and that the clarificatory order in State of Karnataka v. TMA Pai Foundation (2003) gave prospectivity to the final decision; the Supreme Court held that the clarificatory order did not expressly make the final decision prospective and only remitted matters to High Courts with a direction to bring schemes in conformity; thus no continuing right to subvention after 31.10.2002 (Paras 9-10.1) C) Writ Petition - Pleading and Evidence - Factual Claim - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The respondent college failed to furnish any data on fee charged and expenses incurred to show a shortfall justifying subvention; following Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534, the Court held that when a point of law requires substantiation by facts, the party must plead and annex evidence; without such evidence, the claim for payment cannot be entertained (Paras 6-6.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the final decision in TMA Pai Foundation case by 11-Judge Bench renders the decision of the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the High Court liable to be interfered with, and whether the appellants are entitled to relief
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned orders of the High Court set aside; respondent college not entitled to payment of subvention amount for the period after academic year 2002-03.
Law Points
- Subvention scheme created by interim order in TMA Pai Foundation case was impliedly declared unconstitutional by the final 11-Judge Bench decision
- Absence of factual pleading and evidence disentitles writ petitioner to relief
- Clarificatory order in State of Karnataka v. TMA Pai Foundation did not give prospective effect to final decision
