Judicial Review of Academic Decisions

This thesis entitled “Judicial review of academic decisions.Education in India is being increasingly controlled and guided by the courts.This study makes an attempt to assess the involvement of the court in regulating education and its role or interference in the conventional concepts of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘university autonomy.The study mostly concentrates on the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and its invocation in academic matters with particular reference to the decisions of the Kerala High Court.The concept of judicial review in the Constituent Assembly, initial approach of the Supreme Court of India towards the doctrine, gradual empowerment of Indian judiciary in this area and the resultant judicial activism.The study proceeds through the analysis of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘university autonomy’ in the 4"‘ chapter. This chapter attempts to probe academic freedom and university autonomy in India,England and United States and autonomy of Indian universities before and after independence.Basic principles and the jurisdictional parameters of judicial review in the area of academic decisions, as pronounced by the Apex Court, can be convincingly and consistently followed by the High Courts, which is possible only if special Academic Benches are constituted.

Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness

This thesis is a study of -Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness. This study is an attempt to evaluate the concept of backwardness and equality of opportunity in employment and to assess the judicial perspectives in relation to them. The study reveals that the recent review petition of the Constitution Bench did not assess the decision of Chakradhar and its import. The study reveals that the Indian judiciary could successfully locate and apply the above principles. It was-Justice Subba Rao's nascent attempt in Devadasan which marked the starting point of such a jurisprudential enquiry. Later Thomas developed the thoughts by a reading new meaning and content to equality provisions of the Constitution which included the elimination of inequalities as the positive content of Articles 14 and 16(1) and elevated reservation provision to the same status of equality principles under the Constitution. Soshit, Vasanth Kumar and Mandal supplemented further to the jurisprudential contents. In this process, the courts were guided by the theories of John Rawls, David Miller, Ronald Dworkin, Max Weber and Roscoe Pound. Thus there was a slow and steady process of transformation of the reservation provision. From an anti-meritarian, unenforceable and enabling provision, it reached a stage of equally relevant and explanatory part of fundamental right to equality. Mandal viewed it as a part of sharing of State power. Though this can be seen by rereading and re-joining thoughts of judges in this regard, the judicial approach lacks coherence and concerted efforts in evolving a jurisprudential basis for protective discrimination. The deliberations of the framers of the Constitution reveals that there was much confusion and indeterminacy with regard to the concept of Backwardness. The study shows that the judiciary has been keeping intact the framers’ expectation of having a reasonable quantum of reservation, preventing the undeserved sections from enjoying the benefit, avoiding its abuse and evolving a new criteria and rejecting the old ones.