NCTE is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India: Delhi HC

In an important legal ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the status of the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) as a ‘State’ under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

The verdict, pronounced by Judge C. Hari Shankar, underlines the crucial role of executive orders of the NCTE in constituting “law” within the ambit of Article 19(6). The case revolved around a series of pleadings filed by various teacher training colleges (TEIs), challenging the decision of the NCTE was contested. to return outstanding applications for recognition of teacher training courses. The NCTE decision, taken during the 55th General Assembly (GBM), was aimed at coming in line with the new National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020).

A consortium of counsel represents the petitioners including Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Chritarth Palli, Mr. Aman Singhania, Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Kant, the Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Madavaram Priyanka, Mr. Gourav Arora, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti Kumari and Mr. Mrinal Kishor submitted that the decision of the NCTE was purely executive in nature and did not constitute a “law”. Article 19(6).

However, Justice Shankar’s ruling rejected these arguments and emphasized that executive orders of the NCTE have the weight of “law” under Article 19(6). He asserted, “An executive order of the NCTE would therefore also constitute ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 19(6).”Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India empowers the state to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of certain rights, including the right to practice any profession or to carry on any profession, profession or business practice, in the interests of the general population. public.

The court emphasized that decisions taken by the NCTE, in pursuance of its powers conferred under Section 12(c) of the NCTE Act, cannot be equated with ordinary executive orders. “There is no reason why the decisions of the NCTE, taken in exercise of the power lawfully conferred on it under Article 12(c) of the NCTE Act, should not constitute a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 19(c) 6.” noted Justice Shankar.

Furthermore, the court underlined the paramount importance of public interest in the transition to the integrated teacher training system envisaged in the NEP 2020. Justice Shankar emphasized: “The concerns raised in the NEP 2020, and the consequent decision to shift to an integrated teacher education system, replacing the erstwhile B.Ed. or D.EI.Ed. programs, is eminently in the public interest.”

The ruling made it clear that the NCTE’s decision to stay the hearing of pending applications is in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(c) of the NCTE Act, which gives the council the power to take such decisions. “The power to execute the said decision would also carry with it the power to return such applications.” the court noted.

Also read

Additionally, the ruling relied on legal precedents, including the case of Michael Fenton and James Fraser v John Stephen Hampton (1857-1859) 117 RR 32 and ITO v MK Mohd Kunhi (1969) AIR 430, to underline the doctrine of implied powers in statutory interpretation. Judge Shankar explained: “One of the first principles of law relating to the effect of an enabling act is that when a legislature makes anything possible, it at the same time, by necessary implication, gives power to do whatever is indispensable to the purpose of executing the law. purposes in mind.”

In conclusion, Justice Shankar upheld the legality of the NCTE’s decision and stated: “I am unable… to agree with the petitioners’ contentions that the impugned decision… not to process the petitioners’ applications and instead return them to the petitioners is in any way unlawful or is weak.’ The court rejected the requests and did not impose an order for costs.

Case Name: PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other related matters

Case number: WP(C) 12983/2022 and CM APPLs.39379/2022, 2182/2023 and 4973/2023

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar

Order dated: 22.03.2024